Mainstream Islam Sanctions Female “Circumcision”/Genital Mutilation of Muslim Women To Reduce Their “Concupiscence”

 Jad al-Haq, d. 1996, was a Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s Vatican

Jad al-Haq, d. 1996, was a Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s Vatican

By Andrew Bostom:

**

Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: “Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.”

[Sunan Abu Dawud, Chapter 1888, “Circumcision of Girls”, Number 5251, fromSunan Abu Dawud, one of the six canonical hadith collections, English translation with Explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan, 2007, Volume III, p. 1451]

Prof Hasan’s note adds the following observations:

“Some Shafii scholars hold that circumcision of girls is obligatory, but others think that it is recommended. Ahmad b. Hanbal and some Maliki jurists hold that it is obligatory. Abu Hanifah maintains that it is recommended and not obligatory. Mali holds that it is recommended and not obligatory.”

The great Muslim polymath al-Jahiz (d, 869) noted that female circumcision was specifically employed as a means to reduce female “concupiscence,” unbridled lust—or mere sexual pleasure, derived from a fully intact clitoris:

[Al-Jahiz, Kitab al-hayawan, Vol. 7, pp. 27-29] A woman with a clitoris has more pleasure than a woman without a clitoris. The pleasure depends on the quanityt which was cut from the clitoris. Muhammad said, “If you cut, cut the slightest part and do not exaggerate because it makes the face more beautiful and it is more pleasing for the husband.” It seems Muhammad wanted to reduce the concupiscence of the women to moderate it. If concupiscence is reduced, the pleasure is also reduced…The love of the husband is an impediment against debauchery. Judge Janab Al-Khaskhash contends that he counted in one village the number of women who were circumcised and those who were not, and he found that the circumcised were chaste and the majority of the debauched were uncircumcised. Indian, Byzantine, and Persian women often commit adultery and run after men because their concupiscence towards men is greater. For this reason, India created brothels. This happened because of the massive presence of their clitorises and their hoods.

This argument is repeatedly invoked by classical Muslim jurists, and remains at present the most commonly cited rationale for circumcision of Muslim women. For example, here are two opinions from respected Al-Azhar clerics/”Professors,” Al Azhar University and its mosque representing the pinnacle of Sunni Islamic religious education, the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. The first observation was by the late Jad al-Haq (d. 1996) who served as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and as such was a Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent:

[Jad al-Haq, 1983, Khitan al-banat, in: Al-fatawi al-islamiyyah min dar al-ifta al-masriyyah, Vol. 9, p. 3124] Al-Haq insisted the present era makes female circumcision requisite, “because of mixing of the sexes at public gatherings. If the girl is not circumcised, she subjects herself to multiple causes of excitation leading her to vice and perdition.”

[Abd al-Rahman Al-Adawi, al-Azhar Professor, 1989, from Al-khitan, ra’y al-din wal-‘ilm fi khitan al-awlad wal-banat, pp 81-2] Noting that Female circumcision is makrumah—a meritorious action, al-Adawi claims it helps the woman, “remain shy and virtuous. In the Orient, where the climate is hot, a girl gets easily aroused if she is not circumcised. It makes her shameless and prey to her sexual instincts except those to whom Allah shows compassion.

 

 

 

Int’l Zero Tolerance for FGM Day: 125 Million Have Been Cut

FGMDAYHP_0

Read, print or download Clarion Project’s Fact Sheet on FGM

Clarion Project:

More than 125 million girls and women have suffered from FGM worldwide, and 30 million more are at risk in the next 10 years. An estimated 20,000 girls in the UK are at risk of FGM each year.

February 6 is the UN’s International Zero Tolerance for FGM day. It was first established in 2003 by Stella Obasanjo, the First Lady of Nigeria.

To coincide with this, the British Government, alongside the Guardian and a coalition of advocacy groups has launched a national and international campaign to end FGM. It will be based in London and Nairobi, and it combines political advocacy and lobbying with grassroots action.

The goal of the campaign is to end FGM in a generation. Progress is being made. In 2012 a UN General Assembly resolution called for its eradication, and as of 2013 an estimated 10,000 communities have abandoned the practice.

Read more

Also see:

Esman: Women are “Biggest Losers” in Arab Spring

Londoners Sign Muslim Petition to Mutilate Girls Because “It’s Their Culture”

h-450x225By Daniel Greenfield:

Political correctness has wonCivilization has lost.

A Londoner who suffered female genital mutilation has warned that political correctness is hampering the fight to stamp it out after asking people to sign a fake petition in its favour.

Leyla Hussein, 32, said many were scared to speak out against FGM because they were worried about criticising another culture.

She decided to conduct an experiment to see “how crazy political correctness has become” but was left in tears by the end.

Approaching shoppers with the petition supporting FGM, she told them she wanted to protect her  “culture, traditions and rights”.

In only 30 minutes 19 people signed it with some saying they believed FGM was wrong but because it was part of Ms Hussein’s culture they would add their names. Only one person refused to sign.

Ms Hussein, who was cut when she was seven in Somalia, said: “Four women held me down and cut my clitoris. I felt every single cut. I was screaming so much I just blacked out.”

“I kept using the word ‘it’s just mutilation’. They were like ‘yes, you are right’. How can anyone think that’s okay?”

She added: “FGM is not culture, it is violence. Stop using the culture word. This is happening to children. We are human beings, we can’t watch children being cut, I don’t care what culture you belong to.”

People have been so trained to ignore their common sense and moral instincts when the right liberal buzzwords are uttered that they are capable of participating in the worst crimes.

 

FGM: ‘It’s like neutering animals’ – the film that is changing Kurdistan

film on FGM

 

By  and :

A young girl is given a plastic bag of sweets and a bottle of lemonade after being genitally mutilated … the story of the 10-year fight against female genital mutilation by two film-makers has been made into a hour long documentary by the Guardian and BBC Arabic and will go out across the Arab world from Friday, reaching a combined global audience of 30 million viewers. This is the Guardian’s shorter web version of that film

It started out as a film about a practice that has afflicted tens of millions of women worldwide. It culminated in a change in the law.

Ten years after they embarked on a documentary to investigate the extent of female genital mutilation in Kurdistan, two film-makers have found their work changing more than just opinions in a fiercely conservative part of the world. Partly as a result of the film, the numbers of girls being genitally mutilated in the villages and towns of Iraqi Kurdistan has fallen by more than half in the last five years.

Shara Amin and Nabaz Ahmed spent 10 years on the roads of Kurdistan speaking to women and men about the impact of female genital mutilation (FGM) on their lives, their children and their marriages. “It took a lot of time to convince them to speak to us. This was a very taboo subject. Speaking about it on camera was a very brave thing to do.

“It took us weeks, sometimes months to get them to talk and in the end it was the women that spoke out – despite the men,” said Ahmed.

The result was a 50-minute film, A Handful of Ash. When it was shown in the Kurdish parliament, it had a profound effect on the lawmakers.

The film-makers’ work began in 2003, shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The stories they were told had a numbing consistency. In one scene in the documentary a young mother with her children sitting beside her tells Shara that in their village: “They would just grab the little girls, take them and cut them, and the girls came back home. I can still remember I was sick, infected for three months. I could barely walk after I was cut.”

A mullah tells the film-makers that “Khatana [the Kurdish term for FGM] is a duty; it is spiritually pure.” That is the position of the Shafi’i school of Sunni Islam that is practised by Iraqi Kurds. It is the same branch of Islamic law that predominates in Egypt, where studies show that up to 80% of women have been mutilated. But FGM is not just confined to some Muslim countries in the Middle East – it is also widespread in parts of Africa and
Indonesian. It pre-dates Islam or Christianity and is on record since
the time of the Pharaoh.

“It is about controlling women’s sexuality and keeping them under control,” said Nadya Khalife, from Human Rights Watch.

Read more at The Guardian

For more on FGM go to http://counterjihadreport.com/category/female-genital-mutilation/

UK: The Crisis of Female Genital Mutilation

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????by Soeren Kern:

Despite these laws, no one has ever been prosecuted for performing FGM. Victims are often afraid to speak out for fear of physical abuse or death threats, some involving paid hitmen.

British authorities are redoubling their fight against the spiraling problem of female genital mutilation (FGM) after a weekly primetime television show broadcast by the BBC forced the previously “taboo” subject into mainstream debate.

FGM is endemic in Muslim-majority countries across Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Three million girls between infancy and age 15 are subject to FGM every year, and it is believed that 140 million women worldwide are suffering from the lifelong consequences of the practice.

FGM has emerged as a major problem in Europe due to mass immigration. The European Parliament estimates that 500,000 girls and women in the European Union are living with FGM, and every year another 180,000 girls in Europe are at risk of being “cut.”

Britain has the highest levels of FGM in Europe. According to a government-funded study published in 2007, at least 66,000 women and girls in Britain have had the procedure performed on them, and more than 20,000 girls under the age of 15 are currently at risk.

These figures, however, may be only the tip of the iceberg. A 2011 Department of Health policy paper warns that “it is possible that, due to population growth and immigration from practicing countries…FGM is significantly more prevalent than these figures suggest.”

FGM is thought to be common in Britain among immigrant groups from Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kurdistan, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Northern Sudan, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Yemen.

The Times of London has reported that circumcisers — also known as “house doctors” because they conduct the procedure in private homes — are often flown to Britain from Africa and the Middle East to carry out the mutilations.

Alternatively, families who have immigrated to Britain from countries where FGM is practiced may send their daughters back to those countries to undergo FGM there, ostensibly under the guise of visiting relatives.

According to The Guardian, the six-week-long school summer holiday in Britain is the most dangerous time of the year for these girls. It is a convenient time to carry out the procedure because the girls need several weeks to heal before returning to school.

Sometimes immigrants living in other European countries even send their daughters to Britain to have them mutilated there. In an interview with the BBC, Isabelle Gillette-Faye, an anti-FGM activist in France, recounts the story of two little girls about to board a train for London.

Gillette-Faye says: “It was a Friday. We heard just in time. They had tickets for Saturday. A family member tipped us off. We told the police and they were stopped from making the journey.” The parents were warned that if they would go ahead with the mutilations and be found out, they would be imprisoned for up to 13 years.

“In England,” she added, “you are very respectful of your immigrants. It is very different in France. They have to integrate and they have to obey our laws. We simply will not tolerate this practice.”

In Bristol, a city in southwest England with a sizeable immigrant community, it is believed that some 2,000 girls are at risk of “FGM parties.” According to the BBC, “They cut them all together, as a group, because it is cheaper and quicker that way. At first the girls are all excited because it’s a party, until they realize what is going to happen, and then they get frightened. It’s done by the elder women, or the Imam, whoever is expert at cutting.”

FGM has been a crime in Britain for more than 25 years. It was made a criminal offense by the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. That Act was superseded by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and (in Scotland) by the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005, both of which also introduce extraterritoriality. Taking a British citizen or permanent resident abroad for the purpose of FGM is a criminal offense whether or not it is lawful in the country to which the girl is taken.

Despite these laws — which carry a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison for anyone convicted of carrying out FGM or helping it to take place — no one in Britain has ever been prosecuted for performing it.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

Rape and the Islamic Doctrine That Allows It

 

Egyptian woman

Historically and juridically, Islam sanctions FGM for Muslim females and rape and sexual slavery of non-Muslim females. Westerners determinedly avoid the topic altogether.

By Clare Lopez:

The first time that many Americans and others in the West became aware of the extent of the mistreatment of  women in Muslim-majority countries was on February 11, 2011, the night that Hosni Mubarak’s government fell in Cairo and CBS News correspondent, Lara Logan, was brutally sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square.

Yet, those already familiar with the Egyptian street know that the brazen sexual harassment of women has been a feature of public life there for a long time. After all, this is an overwhelmingly Muslim country where statistics show more than 90 per cent of women undergo genital mutilation (Female Genital Mutilation-FGM), whose fundamental purpose is to destroy female sexuality—not only so that men may more easily control their own women but in an attempt to remove ostensible “provocation” from men who are raised from infancy in an environment of permissiveness to believe they are superior to women.

And while Western feminist groups determinedly avoid the topic altogether, international organizations charged with studying the treatment of women around the world typically take pains to avoid any insinuation that either FGM or rape of women and girls has anything to do with Islam. Unfortunately, both do. Doctrinally, historically and juridically, Islam sanctions FGM for Muslim females and the rape and sexual slavery of non-Muslim females.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

Amnesty Int’l: Don’t Call Female Genital Mutilation “Barbaric”

281851582_221142755001_100723FGM-3622281By Abigail Esman:

Recently, I penned an article about  an Amnesty International initiative: an art project for which the organization had commissioned artists and designers to address the devastating problem of female genital mutilation, or FGM – using 8,000 paper rose petals.  The petals had been gathered as part of a petition action to bring attention to – and to end – the practice of FGM, and were each signed by a member of the public who participated in the petition.  It was a laudable project, and I said so.

Amnesty responded with great appreciation for my story – but took exception to one detail.  I had  called FGM “barbaric,” and, said an Amnesty official, “we try not to use this word.”  In an e-mail, she explained, “The use of the word ‘barbaric’ suggests that the people who do this are less than human, which isn’t so because they are being led by social pressure which is what needs to be fought. So we avoid using this word to not judge the people.”

Overlooking the fact that “barbaric,” which means simply “uncultured,” “uncivilized,” or “uneducated,” does not quite suggest “less than human,” I could not help but wonder about the “not to judge them” part.  After all, if you set out to change a thing – a behavior, a place, a custom  (and especially if you set out to end it) – haven’t you already implicitly expressed a judgment?  And how is calling a custom, a practice, “barbaric,” conferring a judgment on the people who perform it?

This is the question that occurred to me soon after this exchange as I read about a similar situation in Canada, where, once again, the term “barbaric,” used to describe FGM – as well as honor killings – came under fire.  According to a report in Front Page, “Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word ‘barbaric’ might ‘stigmatize some cultures.’”

Now, perhaps it’s just me, but I can’t think of many things moreundemocratic than censorship of language; but that, apparently, is precisely what the Canadian “New Democratic Party” seeks.

Hearing of Ms. Sims’ remarks, I was reminded of the words of another, wiser politician: former British Home Secretary Michael Howard, who, in defense of artistic freedom, once remarked, “We are uniquely fortunate in these  islands to have the English language. It is no accident that we have had and do have such a profusion of brilliant poets, playwrights, novelist and songwriters.

We must never allow the richness of that language to be diluted by bending the knee to the tyranny of political correctness.”  [Emphasis added, A.E.]

What wonderful words.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Canadian Left Calls for ‘Neutrality’ on Honor Killings & Female Genital Mutilation

clitorectomyBy :

Cultural relativism has reached a new point of absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy.

A recently introduced manual by the Government of Canada intended to teach newcomers about Canadian values and Canadian society has been met with ongoing hostility from left-wing Canadians and politicians over the choice of words in describing female genital mutilation and honor killings. Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word “barbaric” might “stigmatize some cultures.”

Aside from official protestations, everyone can imagine the type of cultural relativist rhetoric that has been used to attack the Conservative government for releasing this guide. The blogosphere has been filled with “liberal-minded” Canadians continuing in the same vein as Ms. Sims, suggesting the term “barbaric” is somehow discriminatory or offensive to a particular group. However, reasoned thought on the matter should conclude on the exact opposite; that it is offensive to those forced to endure such ordeals to call them anything but barbaric. Unfortunately, sensitivity towards this group (as per usual) is ignored.

Taking up the relativist banner was also none other than Justin Trudeau, front-runner for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and son of the infamous Canadian Prime Minister who brought multiculturalist policy to Canada. He attacked the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric,” and suggested that the term was a “pejorative” and that “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Justin Trudeau’s Islamist Revival (counterjihadreport.com)

Female Genital Mutilation on Rise in U.S.

images (6)by:  Clare Lopez:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women). For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce.(Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.) – Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law

As the population of immigrants to the United States increases from countries where Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is practiced, so does the practice of cutting. This is the finding of a new study published by the New York-based non-profit organization,Sanctuary for Families, which specializes in gender-based violence.

The study, “Female Genital Mutilation in the United States: Protecting Girls and Women in the U.S. From FGM and Vacation Cutting,” relied on statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and data from the 2000 U.S. census.

Both CDC and the census appear to have arrived at their conclusions by extrapolating from the numbers of immigrants who come from countries documented by the World Health Organization as places where FGM is common, in order to arrive at a number of women and girls in the U.S. deemed “at risk” for FGM, either in the U.S. itself or while on “vacations” to home countries of origin.

Read more at RadicalIslam.org

 

John Kerry Should Ask President Morsi About Genital Mutilation

images (6)By David P. Goldman:

If the State Department wants to advance the rights of Egyptian women, why not ask President Mohammed Morsi to support a ban on female genital mutilation, a horrific form of violence perpetrated on more than 90% of Egyptian women, according to the World Health Organization? The point of the mutilation is to destroy a woman’s capacity for sexual pleasure the better to ensure her marital fidelity. Deposed President Mubarak and his wife campaigned against it: not so President Morsi. As the blog “An Arab Citizen” reported last year:

Speaking now on Egypt’s CBC Channel in a “meet your presidential candidate” type of event, the FJP/MB’s Mohammed Morsy was asked by a female doctor and panelist what he thought about recent calls to apparently “revise” the law banning FGM/Female Circumcision in Egypt. The candidate embarked on a long and vague answer which left a few, including the doctor herself, uncertain to a considerable extent as to his concise statement of position. But most of the people I have spoken to agree that the candidate seems to be suggesting that it should be the prerogative of the family to decide if they want their daughter to undergo it or not. When pressed further, he said it was not the role of the president to be involved in such details.

The Mubarak government banned the practice in June 2007, to little effect. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi refused to support the ban. The most prominent Muslim Brotherhood cleric, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, defended a surreal “moderate” position of removing part but not all of the clitoris in a fatwa published on the website Islam Online:

The most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet’s hadiths—even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: “Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands.” The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman’s health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet’s saying “do not exceed the limit” means do not totally remove the clitoris.

There is no greater right than the right not to be killed or mutilated, as 90% of Egyptian women have been. Is there a more heinous or systematic violation of human rights anywhere in the world than the genital mutilation of tens of millions of women? And is there a more revolting example of human rights violation in the name of religion than the declaration of the Muslim Brotherhood’s leading authority, Sheikh Qaradawi? Why doesn’t Secretary Kerry say something about this? And why don’t American feminists demand that he raise the issue? Does cultural sensitivity trump the most fundamental right of women?

Read more at PJ Media

 

Shocking Facts on Female Genital Mutilation

fgmby: Abigail R. Esman:

Last fall, Mohamed Kandeel, a physician and member of the Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research – a partner of the World Health Organization (WHO) – published an article in which he argued for the legalization of the procedure widely called “female genital mutilation” (FGM).

His reasoning?  Because it is practiced by Muslim cultures throughout Africa and much of the Middle East, and the Muslim community, he noted, “is the second largest in the world.”

Kandeel’s ideas may be all wrong, but his facts are shockingly correct: The WHO estimates that between 100-140 million women and girls have undergone FGM, with millions more likely to be victimized, and the overwhelming majority of these women and girls are Muslim.  (FGM does take place in non-Muslim cultures in Africa and among Coptic Christians in Egypt, but it is by no measure as widespread.)

Read more at Radical Islam

Abigail R. Esman, an award-winning writer based in New York and the Netherlands, is the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West

 

condemn FGM

AMJA Senior Committee Member: Female Genital Mutilation Is ‘an Honor’ per Islam

 

Dr. Hatem al-Haj

A couple of weeks ago I posted a translation of a paper by Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) senior committee member Dr. Hatem al-Haj, PhD, MD, in which he warned American Muslims against working in law enforcement in our ‘infidel’ nation (see here for more details). Now in my latest translation, Dr. al-Haj explains why female circumcision is recommended and even ‘an honor’ for women. This is the same practice which is popularly known as female genital mutilation (FGM) due to the pain it causes women. The World Health Organization (WHO) asserts that “the procedure has no health benefits for women,” and causes a range of health problems including “severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth.”

Yet Dr. al-Haj, a medical doctor and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, ignores FGM’s detrimental effects on women’s health, and instead argues that it is ‘an honor’ for women. He justifies this position by referring repeatedly to the words of classical Islamic scholars from the four schools of mainstream Sunni Islamic thought, all of which attest to FGM’s legitimacy under Islam. He also refers to the words of the Prophet Muhammad himself, who reportedly counselled people in his day on how to perform FGM in a way that would be “more beautiful to behold and better for [the woman's] husband.”

——————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————-
 
Assessment

It appears that for male circumcision the most correct view is that it is obligatory, owing to the saying of Muhammad to the man who converted to Islam: “Remove your infidel hair and be circumcised.” This was obligatory–there was no alternative.

Regarding women, perhaps the most correct view is that it is recommended, however there is consensus that it is (at least) legitimate. Muhammad also endorsed it, as was narrated in the hadith of Umm ‘Atiyah, who used to circumcise girls. He said to her: “Reduce it, but do not remove too much, because it is more beautiful to behold and better for her husband.” He also said, “If you touch the two circumcisions, you must wash.” This shows that female circumcision was prevalent during his day, and he did not repudiate it. Nor did he stipulate anything else regarding female circumcision.

Perhaps the saying that it is (only) recommended is due to the pain women must go through to carry out the acts of al-fitrah, such as circumcision, as stated in the sound hadith. But as we mentioned, this is not evidence of it being confined only to men. The term circumcision was used for both men and women during Muhammad’s time. But it is clear that performing circumcision must be preferable to not performing it, especially when one considers that circumcision includes both pain and revealing one’s nakedness. Thus if there was no benefit to it, the Messenger of Allah would not have agreed to it. However there is still no evidence for making it obligatory. The fact that the Messenger of Allah agreed to it despite the pain and discovering one’s nakedness is not evidence for making it obligatory. Instead, this is evidence for preferring the action over not doing it, as we stated. (Muhammad’s) command to Umm ‘Atiyah is not a command to all women to (be circumcised), but rather he was regulating its practice. He was not telling her not to do it, he was telling her not to go too far and injure the women.

His command to the man who converted to Islam does not apply to women. Even though the principle is that “women are men’s sisters”, and women are often included when addressing men and vice versa, that only applies when there is no reason to differentiate between them. Here the issue is different for men and women. The man’s foreskin could trap urine at the end of it and affect his cleanliness. The issue is not the same for women. Therefore it is appropriate for this to be stressed more for men, and this is apparent in the words of scholars and the works of the ummah.

I have summed up the words of Muhammad and of scholars to show that circumcision is legitimate, and that the principal issue in the study is the limits of circumcision

Misinformation from U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services about Islam & FGM

by Christopher Holton, FSM:

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), sometimes referred to euphemistically as Female Genital Cutting (FGC) or Female Circumcision, is one of the most barbaric practices in the world today. It is prohibited by law in the USA and many Western countries. Moreover, several US states have outlawed FGM, while legislation is pending in some others.

Not enough is known about FGM in the USA and our federal government has clouded the issue by spreading false information about the practice.

A “Fact Sheet” produced by the US Department of Health and Human Services contains the following passages:

Although many people believe that FGC is associated with Islam, it is not. FGC is not supported by any religion and is condemned by many religious leaders.

No religious text requires or even supports cutting female genitals. In fact, Islamic Shari’a protects children and protects their rights.

http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/female-genital-cutting.cfm#e 

This information is false and had it been produced in a privately produced document it would be considered outright fraud. 

Despite what the HHS claims, FGM is in fact associated with Islam, is supported in contemporary interpretation of Islamic scripture and has been endorsed by Islamic religious leaders. Shariah law manuals require and support the practice.

Muslims in America still practice FGM. At least some Muslims justify it based on religious freedom and, in at least one state in which anti-FGM legislation is currently working its way through the legislative process, one legislator reports receiving a phone call from a Muslim constituent urging her to oppose the legislation as “a conspiracy against the Muslim community.”

One of the most widely read Shariah law texts is Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

This book was translated into English in 1991. It has been endorsed by the President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and the President of the Fiqh Council of North America, as well as Al Azhar Research Academy in Cairo, Egypt, the Sunni Islamic world’s foremost educational institution.

On page 59 of Reliance one finds this passage:

e4.3    Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)

As an explanation, there are several schools of Shariah jurisprudence, known as “fiqhs.” As the passage above explains, for some female “circumcision” is “obligatory.” For another it is considered “sunna.” For those who are not familiar with the term, sunna in the context of Shariah means a custom or norm established by practice, example, decision or tradition of the prophet Mohammed. As a source of Islamic law, the sunna of the prophet Mohammed is second in importance only to the Quran itself.

And of course, under another Shariah school of jurisprudence, female “circumcision” is seen as a “courtesy to the husband,” whatever that means.

So, despite what the US government’s Department of Health and Human Services says, Shariah texts DO require and support FGM.

But FGM’s grounding in Islam does not end there.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is the Sunni Islamic world’s foremost Shariah scholar. He is the head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars and European Council for Fatwa and Research. He is also chairman of the board of trustees of Islamic American University. Qaradawi, who has been described as the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual and ideological leader, issued a fatwa asserting that “circumcision is better for a woman’s health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband” and that, “whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world.”

The video below depicts in horrible detail this barbaric practice that Qaradawi endorses as “serving the interest of his daughters.” Note that this video is about how the barbaric practice is carried out in GREAT BRITAIN.

WARNING: GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING

 

There is more…with videos

Christopher Holton is a Vice President with the Center for Security Policy and the Director of its Divest Terror Initiative. Chris Holton is a past president and marketing director of Blanchard & Co. and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit from 1990 to 2003. As chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit in 2000, he conceived and commissioned the Center for Security Policy special report Clinton’s Legacy: The Dangerous Decade. Holton is a member of the Board of Advisers of WorldTribune.com.
 
Related article:

Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia

By Mark Durie:

 I was struck today by a comment from a Maldives women’s rights activist about the direction her nation is taking.  In a report published the Melbourne Age, which discussed female circumcision and the local practice of flogging female adulterers, Shadiya Ibrahim remarked:

“Being a woman is harder now. The religious Wahhabist scholars preach more forcefully than anyone else can. They have this backing of religion as a tool.”
“No one can make the argument to have a more liberal, a more positive attitude towards women. Day by day, it is becoming harder for women to live in this country.”

When Shaidya Ibrahim says that ‘no one can make the argument’ for a more positive attitude towards women I take it that she means is that no one can mount a persuasive argument on behalf of women on religious grounds. This is because the Islamic canon — the Qur’an and the Sunna (the example and teaching of Muhammad) — are heavily stacked against women.  Consequently, Islam itself does not provide persuasive doctrinal support for a more ‘positive attitude’, wishful thinking notwithstanding. 

This is why pious religious leaders in the Maldives are winning the argument for reducing women’s rights: in a society which Islam trumps all other considerations — it is illegal for a citizen of the Maldives not to be a Muslim — no-one is able to counter their arguments. The increasing limitations on women’s rights has ‘the backing of religion’, as Shadiya Ibrahim puts it.

What does this mean in practice?  Consider the example of female circumcision.  The Shafa’i school of Islam, which is followed in the Maldives, is the only one of the four Sunni schools which makes circumcizing females a compulsory religious obligation.  Other Sunni schools of sharia regard female circumcision as recommended or preferred (sunnat).  Ironically, if only the Maldives followed Hanbali jurisprudence (the school mainly followed by Wahhabis), they might practice female circumcision less.  (In Saudi Arabia it is the minority Shafa’i areas where female circumcision is most prevalent.)

The reference in the article to ‘Wahhabist’ influence does not refer to strict adherence to Wahhabi teachings, but to a newly empowered and very self-confident revivalist approach to Islam, often backed by Saudi finance — which insists on the application of pure religious teachings, especially the authority of Muhammad’s example, giving it priority over all other considerations, including medical evidence.  As this argument becomes more compelling, on religious grounds, it empowers the traditional teachings of Shafa’i Islamic jurisprudence, including the obligation of female circumcision.  Thus the women of the Maldives are called to bear the marks of Islamic revivalism on their very bodies. 

The world is in the midst of global Islamic revival.  This is actually a “reformation” in the sense that many of the world’s Muslims are returning to Islam’s roots.  According to many Islamic activists, it is a matter of Muslim pride that global Islam is on a reform path to become more authentic, returning to its origins in Muhammad’s life and teaching.  This movement has been building momentum for over a century and it is far from exhausted. 

Muslim women are among those (along with non-Muslims and Muslim dissenters) who bear the brunt of Islam’s progress in the modern era.  For example, see here for a recent discussion by a Muslim writer, Veli Sirin, of how the Islamic Movement is impacting women’s rights in Turkey.  

Mary Robinson, in an infamous speech given to the UN Human Rights Commission way back March 15 2002, stated:

“No one can deny, from a historical perspective, the revolutionary force that is Islam, which bestowed rights upon women and children long before similar recognition was afforded in other civilizations. … And no one can deny the acceptance of the universality of human rights by Islamic States.”

If Robinson’s thesis were correct, states which make it illegal for their citizens not to be a Muslim (such as the Maldive or Saudi Arabia) and which officially give priority to Islam above all other values ought to be world leaders in protecting the rights of women (and one might add, the rights of girls).  Sadly, the opposite is the case. 

The UN official media reported Robinson’s speech as “UN’s top human rights official urges action to combat ‘Islamaphobia’”.  This is a prime example of how anti-Islamophobia rhetoric can be used — albeit at times unwittingly — to gloss over and provide a cover of denial for human rights abuses. 

Robinson argued that “Islamic communities need to become more active in countering ignorance through offering positive information on Islam and Islamic beliefs,” yet of course this is exactly the recipe being followed in the Maldives, where Muslim leaders are teaching ‘forcefully’ with the ‘backing of religion’ as they counter ‘ignorance’ by providing what they consider to be ‘positive information’ about Islam, such ‘positive information’ including the great value of circumcising girls and stoning adulterers.

The proven principle, lamented by moderate Muslims all over the globe, which should by now be clear to all, is that the more Islamic a state, the worse the plight of its female citizens becomes.  This is because of, not in spite of Muslim leaders ‘countering ignorance through offering positive information on Islam’, as Robinson put it.  It is a grotesque, Orwellian distortion to call naming such truth ‘Islamophobia’, and the first — but not the last — victims of this lie are Muslims.

Related articles: