At 11:40 AM 12/26/2012, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:
[...]
On Dec 24, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
> Quite honestly, this is the first time I've heard of FGM. After
my first google, I found out what it was and was taken aback by the
practice. This sort of retrograde practice of course is typical of
islam. This is a tribal tradition. When women are property, you
can pretty much do anything to them.
I actually learned something from the question having been raised.
The issue becomes highly contentious because minor circumcision is
confused with radical circumcision, which truly qualifies as "Female
Genital Mutilation." Minor circumcision is very much equivalent to
what is done with boys, commonly, in many places (and male
circumcision is now being promoted in Africa as a way of inhibiting
the spread of AIDS.)
Muslim authorities differ on what "female circumcision" means. There
are opinions issued sometimes that apparently depend on a
misinterpretation of "baZr" to mean "clitoris." In researching this,
I found that *authoritative opinion* was, regarding the 14th century
work that is a Shafi'i authority, not that baZr means "clitoris," but
the prepuce, the hood over the clitoris, similar to what is removed
from boys in male circumcision. However, just as we see with
non-Muslims, sometime people seize on misleading evidence, to support
what they want to support. It's shocking, I'll agree, that some
Muslim "scholars" may have issued opinions supporting clitoridectomy.
But I haven't seen any modern ones, and I'm not sure whom Lane was
talking about, mid-19th century. He was in Egypt, where female
circumcision would have been a Big Deal. It's not that way in most of
the Muslim world.
However, something else is going on. There is a general attack taking
place on the whole practice of circumcision, not just major
circumcision. And traditionalist Muslims will naturally resist this,
they see it as an attack on their religion. It's fairly clear that
the highest Muslim authorities are solid on the issue: female
circumcision is not an essential practice of Islam, but it's
permitted -- and some say recommended -- but what they are talking
about is *not* major circumcision. It's the minor form, and that's
supported by traditions from the Prophet.
Nobody with any knowledge, recently, is claiming that removal of the
clitoris is even allowed, not to mention the even more drastic forms.
What I gained was an understanding of the *political* issue. Sane
people on all sides are suggesting a compromise, not with women's
health, but with what is moderate. That is, support *education* on
what the true "sunna" practice is, which is *not* clitoridectomy (I
knew that from many years ago, it's actually obvious), but simply an
*optional or suggested* removal of the hood of the clitoris,
analogous to what is done with boys, or sometimes just a ritual cut
or pinprick in it. And support outlawing and condemning more extreme
forms of circumcision, which *violate* an explicit tradition from the
Prophet, and general Islamic principles.
Long term, the arguments that circumcision, per se, is a "barbaric
practice," are aimed not just at female circumcision, but at the male
form as well.
I wonder. Is shaving a barbaric practice? Ear piercing? Just asking!
One more point, the "woman are property" thing. That's definitely not
Islamic law, but it has been maintained, to an extent, by
male-dominated culture, and not just in the Islamic world. Mosty, the
world is moving out of that, and it's about time, just as it's about
time that racism be seen as a myth. Nevertheless, FGM has been
maintained by *women*, the stories make that clear. *Sometimes men
support it and think it some kind of religious obligation.* But the
men would not be able to enforce that idea if not for women
themselves wanting and acting to maintain the practice.
Education. Necessary.
