A few thoughts on FGM

This is quite random, but I thought I'd share two comments that I just posted on an Islamophobe blog that I accidentally landed on from a web search since I think it highlights some important nuances that are often absent from discussions of FGM ("Female Genital Mutilation") in the Muslim world.

I recoil in horror and outrage at FGM–it is an abomination, and one that is is sometimes rationalized using pseudo-religious arguments in certain Muslim societies. The scourge of FGM is real and in urgent need of decisive action in some places. Still, there are gradations that need to be taken into account, and Islamic tradition often gets misrepresented in MSM discussions of these problem.

The blogger in question had expressed his shock at coming across an affirmation of female circumcision in the famous Shafi`i legal manual, The Reliance of the Traveler. When a Muslim reader shared this unequivocal ruling against FGM from none other than SunniPath, the blogger tried to argue the fatwah was somehow unrepresentative of Islamic orthodoxy.

My two comments follow.

A startling and uncomfortable discovery in Islamic shariah « Muslihoon

You’re misinformed on this matter, Muslihoon. FGM is indeed against Islam.

The information pasted in was a fatwah (located here http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?ID=4932) from one of the best known traditional Islamic websites that was written for fellow Muslims, not disingenuous apologetics or wishful thinking.

What is permitted (by some scholars) is called “clitoral hood reduction” in English. Like male circumcision–which is still common in America, unlike Europe- it (unlike FGM) is a minor cosmetic procedure. Women elect to do it for reasons of from aesthetics or to increase their sexual stimulation. Incidentally, it’s pretty common in the USA, and since it is not allowed in some countries for fear of FGM being carried out in its stead, women even *travel to the USA to get it done*.

> If it truly as cultural as people say, why is al-Azhar promoting it?

Please re-read the fatwa. Neither Sheikh Faraz nor Al-Azhar are condoning FGM. Also, Faraz made it clear that he discourages it in practice today out of concern for it being done improperly.

If you are interested in gaining a better understanding of the facts matter (as opposed to merely digging for dirt), take a look at these links:

http://www.shafiifiqh.com/?p=630

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/Articles/circumcision.htm

Here’s a quote from the 2nd link that sums it up:

“If the circumcision of women is to be done, it involves cutting only the outer portion of the clitoris and not as is done in some Muslim countries as cutting off all the entire clitoris. ‘Female circumcision’ of the type practised by some people in Somalia, Egypt and some other African countries is a mutilation forbidden in Islam.”

For my part, I don’t think it is appropriate today, especially in developing countries where medical standards and expertise are likely to be wanting, but assuming a woman’s health is not at risk I’m not sure it’s my place to interfere. (Are we going stop non-Muslim women from getting their labias pierced? Those can have complications, as well.)

Comment #2:

An additional tidbit that you might want to consider from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/45562/female_circumcision_in_the_united_states_pg2.html?cat=17:

Female circumcision in the United States began to be advocated in the early 19th century as a way to control masturbation and to relieve women of those pesky sexual urges. Both clitoridotomy and clitoridectomy were practiced.

There were several groups advocating clitoridectomy and they lasted  until 1925. It is not know precisely when the practice ended in the United States but this form of female circumcision was covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield until 1977. The last clitoridotomy performed to reduce sexually activity was probably the surgery performed in 1958 to stop a 5 year old girl from masturbating. All through the fifties some United States doctors recommend the clitoridotomy form of female circumcision for hygienic reasons and to reduce masturbation.

United States doctors performed an extreme form of female circumcision, the neurectomy, at the turn of the 20th century on institutionalized girls and women. As late as 1950 a very extreme form of female circumcision, electrical cauterization, was performed in the United States on mental patients to stop masturbation.

How soon we forget.

The retort of many critics will no doubt be, "Cutting anything whatsoever off is medically unjustified and barbaric." There are certainly arguments for that view, but they cut both ways (sorry), as boys are routinely "mutilated" around the globe (and especially in the US, the West's great stronghold of circumcision, to many Europeans' consternation) in a comparable manner. 

For me, the most important fact to take away from this is that, as uncomfortable as I am with female circumcision in any form, the practices sanctioned by some Muslim scholars today can't reasonably be termed "mutilation", however much one may dispute their underlying rationales. Like male circumcision, female circumcision is not medically necessary–and is, thus, from a secular standpoint ethically problematic–but it simply should not be confused with the horrific extreme practices that tend to dominate the Western media.

That's not to say I don't have concerns about how traditional Islamic defenses of female circumcision square with the reality on the ground in Muslim societies. As a Muslim, I'm relieved to see see Muslim scholars unambiguously repudiate FGM, but as a person who's very concerned about women's health in developing countries I'd like to hear more on question of "quality control" in contemporary madrassahs on this score. Given all the obstacles these institutions must overcome today when training scholars, can it be assumed that they are consistently handling this much misunderstood (and highly politicized) matter with the nuance required to safeguard women's health and needs properly?

Something I wonder about is how did things got so out of hand in the Horn of Africa and Egypt if the fiqh is so clearly opposed to FGM. The encounter with Colonialism disrupted traditional scholarly institutions everywhere, but if I'm not mistaken "family law" has remained largely under the purview of the fuqaha in these societies. Even if scholars are indeed being universally taught their school's correct positions on female circumcision, it seems that their voices have been getting drowned out for generations by other perspectives within their cultures. Why is that, and how do you avoid inadvertently encouraging more FGM when promoting female circumcision as fard (i.e., obligatory) in a backdrop of such gross (and dangerous) ignorance? If sound scholarship and the authentic Sunnah are being overruled so often by allegiance to ancient pre-Islamic cultural practices, is an outright ban not the wisest solution in those areas?