I started to research about the female circumcision once I came across occupational some african immigrant families and their daughters. Being a muslim I felt offended in my belief when I had to hear from this girls, how their parents brought them to elder women of their village somewhere in the pampa, who practised surgery without any studies, anesthesia or medical reason, disfiguring the body Allah gave them. I certainly hope this bunch of information will help for those girls and probably save some others in the future from this destiny. Please share it and use this arguments in any discussion with parents who are considering to let their children undergo this procedures:
While the exact origin of female circumcision is not known, "it preceded Christianity and Islam." The most radical form of female circumcision (infibulation) is known as the Pharaonic Procedure. This may signify that it may have been practiced long before the rise of Islam, Christianity and possibly Judaism. It is not clear, however, whether this practice originated in Egypt or in some other African countries then spread to Egypt.
It is common knowledge that in some countries like Egypt, female circumcision has been practiced by both Muslims and Christians. In the meantime, this practice is not known in most Muslim countries including Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. This leads to the conclusion that female circumcision is connected with cultural practices rather than with Islam itself as a world religion. It is clear that some cultural practices, whether by Muslims alone or Muslims and others (such as the case with female circumcision), are not part of Islam and in some instances may violate its teachings as embodied in its primary sources, Qur'an and Hadeeth. These sources are examined next.
A concise discussion of the main subject requires a detailed prolog to clarify some issues regarding both the nature of Islamic law and the medical terms used to identify the various forms of FGM. Understanding the background of the matter will permit the reader to understand the Islamic position on this question.
It must be understood that Islamic law has a well-defined tradition of jurisprudence. The sources of Islamic law include both revelation and reason. The efforts of scholars to attain understanding of the sharî`ah (i.e., the Divine Law) through various tools (which we shall not detail here) is called ijtihâd.
One fundamental of the Islamic law is that what is not prohibited is allowed. This makes for a great deal of tolerance in the religious law. As a result of this tolerance many pre-Islamic practices were not immediately eradicated by Islam.
No mention of female circumcision is to be found in the Qur'an either directly or indirectly. There is no known Hadeeth which requires female circumcision. Some argued, however, that one Hadeeth, while not requiring female circumcision, appears to accept it: "Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah)."
There are two observations on this Hadeeth:
a) A distinction is made between male circumcision which is described in a stronger religious term (Sunnah) or commendable while another weaker description is given to female circumcision (Makromah) which implies no religious obligation.
b) This Hadeeth is of weak authenticity (dha'eef) according to Hadeeth scholars.
There is, however, a more authentic Hadeeth in which Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is reported to have passed by a woman performing circumcision on a young girl. He instructed the woman by saying:
"Cut off only the foreskin (outer fold of skin over the clitoris; the prepuce) but do not cut off deeply (i.e. the clitoris itself), for this is brighter for the face (of the girl) and more favorable with the husband."
c) There is no evidence about any wives of the Prophet (SAW) himself or about any wives of his sahabas have being circumcised.
While the Prophet (P) did not explicitly ban this practice, his words project a great deal of sensitivity to the instinctive needs of females and their matrimonal happiness and legitimate enjoyment. Reference to the brightness of the face and to better relationship with the husband are clear indications of his senstivity and compassion. They also stand in contrast to the arguments that female circumcision "controls" the woman's sexual appetite and hence contributes to sexual morality and virtue in society. It is true that Islam requires adherents of both genders to be chaste. Yet, there is no text in the Qur'an or Sunnah which requires selective curtailment or control of the sexual desire of one specific gender. Furthermore, chastity and virtue are not contingent on "cutting off" part of any sensitive and crucial human organ. Rather, they are contingent on spiritual and moral values of the person and the supporting virtuous environments.
SHOULD FEMALE CIRCUMCISION BE BANNED OR RESTRICTED?
Shari'ah (Islamic law) divides actions into five categories; mandatory, commendable, permissible, detestable and strictly forbidden. Female circumcision falls within the category of the permissible. It was probably on this basis that some scholars opposed a sweeping ban of this practice. Before discussing this view, it is important to distinguish between different types of procedures that were and still are called circumcision.
TYPES OF CIRCUMCISION
a) Removal of the hood (or prepuce) of the clitoris. This procedure is, to some degree, analgous to male circumcision since in both cases, no part of the sexual organ is cut off. In both cases also, it is only the foreskin, or outer fold of the skin, which is cut off. Properly done, it is not likely to cause any "matrimonial" problem. While some may call it "sunnah circumcision," this is their own appellation and not that of the Prophet (SAW) who used the term Sunnah only in the context of male circumcision.
b) Removal of the entire clitoris (clitorectomy) along with part of the labia minora, which is satured together leaving an opening. This is a form of mutilation.
c) Removal of the entire clitoris, labia minora and medial part of the labia majora, whith both sides of the female organ stitched together leaving a small opeing. This procedure requires tying together the child's legs of nearly three weeks. It is called the Pharaonic procedure but may as well be called "mutilation".
It is obvious that the second and third procedures were never mandated, encouraged or even consented to by the Prophet (SAW). They even violate a known rule in Shari'ah prohibiting the cutting off of any part of the human body except for unavoidable reasons (e.g. medical treatment, trimming nails or hair, or for an explicitly specified reason such as male circumcision). Such necessity or need does not exist in female circumcision. Nothing justifies genital mutilation. In fact, no mutilation is allowed by Islam even in the battlefield. Not only are these two procedures unjustifiable, they are brutal, inhumane and in violation of Islam.
The remaining question then relates to the first procedure. Some (e.g. the late Rector of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Gad Al-Haque) argued that since the Prophet (SAW) did not ban female circumcision, it falls within the category of the permissble. As such, there is no ground for a total ban on it. However, it is within the spirit of Shari'ah to restrict something that is permissible if discovered to be harmful. For example, all fish are permisible to eat. Should a particular type of fish be proven to be poisonous or harmful, it could be banned based on a known Shari'ah rule (Al-dharar Yozaal), or harm must be removed. The real issue then boils down to whether the first procedure is harmful or not. Granted that such a procedure may not be seriously damaging like the other two, it may be argued that it is painful, traumatic and often performed in an unhygienic setting leading to infection and other problems. Even if the procedure is performed by a physician, it is so delicate that not all physicians master it.
It should be noted that some people oppose female circumcision as part of their opposition to any "tradition" as old and invalid. This is as inappropriate as practicing female circumcision because it is a "tradition," regardless of its consistency with Islam or not. The practice should be evaluated objectively, on the basis of
a)whether it is required religiously or not
b) whether there are medical and other relevant issues to be considered in evaluating this practice.
While any form of female circumcision is already legally banned in some countries and may be banned in others in the future, it is not suggested here that this is the only option. In societies and cultures where the practice is well entrenched and socio-cultural pressures for it are great , abrupt legal banning may not end the practice. It may cause it to be practiced "underground" and under more problematic circumstances. However the problem is serious enough that some action is needed. A starting point, perhaps, is to begin by educationg the masses in countries where female circumcision is commonly practiced. All possible media should be used in the process. The contents of this appendix may serve as an outline of such an educational program, or it is so hoped. In any case, the conclusion which appears to be certain is that there is no single text of the Qur'an and Hadeeth which requires female circumcision.
SEXUAL EFFECTS OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION:
The effect of FGC on a woman's sexual experience varies depending on many factors. FGC does not eliminate all sexual pleasure for all women who undergo the procedure, but it does reduce the likelihood of orgasm. Stimulation of the clitoris is not solely responsible for the sexual excitement and arousal of a woman during intercourse; this involves a complex series of nerve endings being activated and stimulated in and around her vagina, vulva (labia minora and majora), cervix, uterus and clitoris, with psychological response and mindset also playing a role.
Lightfoot-Klein (1989) studied circumcised and infibulated females in Sudan, stating, "Contrary to expectations, nearly 90% of all women interviewed said that they experienced orgasm (climax) or had at various periods of their marriage experienced it. Frequency ranged from always to rarely." Lightfoot-Klein stated that the quality of orgasm varied from intense and prolonged, to weak or difficult to achieve.
A study in 2006 found that in some infibulated women, some erectile tissue fundamental to producing pleasure had not been completely excised. Defibulation of subjects revealed that a part of or the whole of the clitoris was underneath the scar of infibulation. The study found that sexual pleasure and orgasm are still possible after infibulation, and that they rely heavily on cultural influences — when mutilation is lived as a positive experience, orgasm is more likely. When FGC is experienced as traumatic, its frequency drops. The study suggested that FGC women who did not suffer from long-term health consequences and are in a good and fulfilling relationship may enjoy sex, and women who suffered from sexual disfunction as a result of FGC have a right to sex therapy.
PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF FGC:
n February 2010, a study by Pharos, a Dutch group which gathers information on health care for refugees and migrants found that many women who have undergone FGC suffer psychiatric problems. This was the first study into the psychiatric and social complaints associated with female circumcision. In the study 66 questioned Dutch African women, who had been subjected to the practice, were found to be "stressed, anxious and aggressive". It also found that they were more likely to have relational problems or in some cases had fears of establishing a relationship. According to the study, an estimated 50 women or girls are believed to be circumcised every year in the Netherlands. The report was published to mark the International Day against female genital mutilation-
A study by anthropologist Rogaia M. Abusharaf, found that "circumcision is seen as 'the machinery which liberates the female body from its masculine properties and for the women she interviewed, it is a source of empowerment and strength"
Amnesty International estimates that 135 million women worldwide have experienced some form of Female genital cutting – mutilation, with over 2 million girls estimated to undergo the procedure every year.
If the Islamic law does not mandate female genital mutilation and tolerates only the most mild form of circumcision (and that only if it produces no adverse effects in the child), then how does it come about that so many people from certain countries with large Muslim populations insist that savage acts which exceed these limits are not only permitted, but required by Islamic law? The answer becomes obvious when one realizes that Christians from many of these countries also insist that the tradition is mandated by their religion as well. People often confuse traditions rooted in local culture with religious requirements.
Immigrants from such countries now residing in the United States stand between the culture of their heritage and the American culture of their environment. They cannot and should not be expected to abandon their religion. There should be no doubt, however, that the young amongst them, at least, will be willing to abandon old-world cultural practices at odds with their adopted culture when such practices are unsupported by religion. (This is because they carry no cultural bias towards such practices. On the contrary, they may absorb biases against them from their adopted culture.)
For Muslims, cliterodectomy and infibulation, specially practiced on children, instead of, like in that only one existing, categorized as weak hadeeth, mentioned WOMEN, should be considered harâm (prohibited) practices and opposition to it should be part of our ongoing mandate to fight against superstition and oppression. As to the mildest form of female circumcision, the risks to the girl's future ability to enjoy sexual relations with her husband must place it at best in the category of makrûh (disliked) practices. Since it has neither hygienic nor religious value, there is no justification for Muslims to engage in this painful and potentially harmful practice and it would be best to avoid it completely.
Wa Allahu a`lam. (And God knows best.)
No comments:
Post a Comment