To Mutilate in the Name of
Jehovah or Allah
Legitimization
of Male and Female Circumcision
by
Sami
A. ALDEEB ABU-SAHLIEH
New enlarged edition, July 1994
By the author
Rue du Centre 74
1025 St-Sulpice/Suisse
· INTRODUCTION
· CHAPTER I.
DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS
o I.
Terminology
o II. Male and
female circumcision
o III.
Practice of male and female circumcision
· CHAPTER II.
RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS
o
o I. Religious
arguments in favour of circumcision
o II.
Religious arguments against circumcision
o III.
Qualification of circumcision in Muslim law
o IV. Modality
of circumcision according to Muslim law
o CHAPTER III.
REASON IN AID OF RELIGION
o
o I. Male
circumcision
o II. Female
circumcision
o III.
Mitigated position of religious circles confronted with Reason
o
· CHAPTER IV. LEGAL
PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
o
o I. To judge
others' customs
o II. Right to
difference or indifference
o III. Distinction
between different forms of circumcision
o IV.
Temporary and preventive measures
o
· CHAPTER V. THE
THIRD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CIRCUMCISION
o
o I.
Organizers and participants
o II. Reasons
of the symposium
o III.
Combating Male circumcision by identifying the responsible parties
o IV. How to
restore the foreskin
o V.
Demonstration in Washington
o
· CONCLUSION
· Footnotes
· Biography
· INTRODUCTION
· Article 24,
paragraph 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, of 20 Nov. 1989, stipulates:
· States Parties
shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing
traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children1.
· In 1984, the
President of the Inter-African Committee stated:
· An erroneous idea
of Religion has played a key role in maintaining the practice of excision and
other practices which tend to relegate the woman to a lower status in relation
to the man 2.
· In April 1987, the
Vice-President of the Inter-African Committee reiterated:
· I request more
aggressive tactics to put an end to the practice of infibulation. I call for
more active support especially from the religious leaders of Islam after it has
been confirmed many times that this practice is contrary to the precept of
Islam 3.
· In this Committee's
opinion, religion and Muslim religious leaders play an important role in the
matter of female circumcision. The goal of this study is to define this role in
male circumcision as well as in female circumcision. We shall on purpose avoid
any use of the word Islam, as too abstract a notion, and we shall concentrate
on the written sources of Muslim law and the opinions of contemporary Arab
authors, mostly of Egyptian origin.
· CHAPTER I. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS
The English language uses different terms to
designate sexual mutilations. Generally, one speaks of circumcision for boys,
and of circumcision, excision or infibulation (depending of the case) for
girls. In this study, we shall use the terms male circumcision and female circumcision
4.
The legal Arabic jargon uses the word khitan
for male circumcision and the term khafd or khifad for female circumcision. But
the everyday language uses the term khitan for both mutilations. There is also
taharah, meaning purification, these mutilations being said to be purificatory
to their victims 5.
II. MALE AND FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
Female circumcision has triggered a
passionate public debate in the West. Many national, non governmental, and
international organizations are showing their concern 6. This debate has found
somewhat of an echo in the Arab world. The feminist circles demand its
abolition, while at the same time, the Muslim religious circles try as often as
they can to justify female circumcision, only in the form called sunnah, which
is said to be the one conforming to the tradition of Mohammed 7. But the Arabic
juridical literature shows very little interest for this issue 8. The Arabic
medical profession does not seem to be much interested either: constituted of a
majority of men, its responsibility is to perpetuate social and moral values
which are predominant in its society, thus blindfolding its members 9.
Contrary to female circumcision, male
circumcision does not really interest anyone10. The debate on the topic is
still taboo. This attitude can be observed in the previously mentioned article
24, paragraph 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In spite of a
general wording, the preparatory studies prove that its authors had only female
circumcision in mind and not male circumcision at all 11.
The distinction made between male
circumcision and female circumcision might be justified for medical and
cultural reasons. According to Wedad Zenie-Ziegler, an Egyptian woman:
There is no similarity between male
circumcision, a prophylactic measure recommended for boys in almost every
society and female circumcision, the goal of which is to diminish, if not
suppress sexual desire in women 12. During the UN Seminar in Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso), the majority of participants agreed that the justifications of
female circumcision based on cosmogony and those based on religion "must
be assimilated to superstition and denounced as such" since "neither
the Bible, nor the Koran recommend that women be excised". They recommend
ensuring that, in the minds of people, male circumcision and female
circumcision be dissociated, the former as a procedure for hygienic purposes,
the latter, excision, as a serious form of assault on the women's physical
integrity 13. This reasoning is groundless and extremely dangerous. If female
circumcision was in the Bible or the Koran, would it be allowed no matter what?
And if one decided to put into practice everything that is said in the Bible
and the Koran, starting with the law of retaliation?!
Another opinion came from Ghita
El-Khayat-Bennai, a Moroccan woman:
Women are not alone in being subjected to
sexual mutilations. Every Jew all over the world for example is circumcised on
the 7th day without much concern on the part of his parents. They keep
circumcising their male offspring, even knowing this to be an extremely
traumatic event, preferring to subject the little boy to pain rather than face
their own fear and cultural taboos as adults 14. Genevieve Giudicelli-Delage
writes:
No doubt the consequences are of lesser
importance in male circumcision than they are in female excision (although some
practices of minimal excision could be seen as identical to male circumcision).
But nevertheless, to take a position in view of consequences alone would be a
mistake. Custom justifies the most serious actions, even death: the essential
here is not action, but culture. If a family from Mali may in France have a son
circumcised, but may not have a daughter excised, it is because male
circumcision belongs to a cultural order which is more or less ours, male
circumcision belongs to this Judeo-Christian ideology which is the melting pot
of our culture and this ideology does not know excision and never did15.
For Doctor Gerard Zwang, the reason for
making a distinction between the two types of circumcision is simple: most
sexologists and most men in charge of information about it are circumcised
[Jews]. They oppose any debate on the subject of male circumcision16.
Juridical logic cannot acknowledge the
distinction between male and female circumcision, both being the mutilation of
healthy organs and consequently damaging the physical integrity of the child,
whatever the religious motivations lying underneath17.
III. PRACTICE OF MALE AND FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
Male circumcision is practiced by all Muslims
and Jews and also by some Christians, as is the case for Christians in Egypt.
It is also practiced by animist tribes in Africa.
As for female circumcision, it is neither
practiced by all Muslims, nor by all Arabs. In fact, many if not most of the
Maghreb countries as well as Turkey and Iran ignore this custom 18. On the
other hand, one can find it among the Egyptian Christians19 and the Ethiopian
Jews (Falachas) 20 who in all probability keep practicing it in Israel today,
as do Africans living in France. Sudan (98%), Somalia (98%) and Egypt (75%) are
among the largest Arabic countries practicing it. In Egypt, 97.5% of uneducated
families impose circumcision upon their daughters compared to 66.2% of educated
families 21. Other Arabic countries practice it too: Yemen, the United
Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, some areas of Saudi Arabia, Mauritania. It
appears to be done also in some Muslim countries of Asia such as Indonesia,
Malaysia, Pakistan and India under the name of sunnah circumcision, here with a
reference to religion. But precise data on the subject are not available. In
Africa, 28 countries appear to practice it, among them many animist tribes. It
seems to affect about 75 million women 22.
Often, male or female circumcision is
performed without anaesthesia in a barbaric manner, by persons without any
medical training, such as barbers or midwives, using rudimentary instruments
causing complications sometimes leading to death. We have many tragic testimonies
on female circumcision but none on male circumcision as obviously nobody is
interested. Still today, I can recall my youth and hear the screams coming from
my young Muslim neighbours while they were being circumcised. Let us quote here
the briefest and least shocking of the women's testimony, that of Samia, a
Muslim girl born in a small Egyptian village close to the Sudanese border, who
now lives in Cairo:
I was seven years old when I was excised. I
recall the stories from women of my village who spoke of this operation as if
their whole life had stopped there and then. The atrocity of their descriptions
and at the same time a feeling of inescapable doom had triggered such a panic
in me that when the terror-laden day came, I began to vomit. What happened then
is still excruciatingly burning my flesh, so much so that I often wake up in
the middle of the night screaming and calling for my mother 23.
Generally the victim is mutilated without
anaesthesia, lying on her back, legs kept wide apart by helpers or by one only
lying under the young girl, her ankles being hooked in the helper's feet. To
immobilize a 7 years old, you sometimes need the help of 5 persons to restrain
her head, arms and legs. When the girl is a toddler, one assistant alone can
manage body and thighs at the same time, while holding her in a sitting
position.
There are many different kinds of male
circumcisions: The circumcision per se consisting of total or partial excision
of the foreskin; phallectomy; castration; emasculation. Only the first kind is
of interest to us due to its frequency and its ritual characteristics. The
other three seem to be less common and we do not have enough information on
them 24.
There are as well many different kinds of
female circumcision:
- The female circumcision called sunnah or
according to the tradition of Mohammed. The religious circles in favour of this
type of female circumcision do not always give details on what is done.
According to a classical author, Al-Mawardi, "it is limited to cutting off
the skin in the shape of a kernel located above the genitalia. One must cut the
protruding epidermis without performing a complete ablation" 25. For
Doctor Hamid Al-Ghawabi, it is the ablation of the clitoris as well as labia
minora 26. According to Doctor Mahran, the hood of the clitoris is excised as
well as the most important parts of the labia minora 27.
- Clitoridectomy or excision. It consists of
the ablation of the clitoris as well as labia minora. It is the operation of
choice in Egypt.
- Infibulation or pharaonic circumcision. It
is practiced in Sudan and Somalia and involves the complete ablation of
clitoris, labia minora and part of labia majora. The two sides of the vulva are
then sewn together with silk or catgut stitches (Sudan) or with thorns (Somalia)
in order to close the vulva, except a very small opening for the passage of
urine and menstrual flow 28. On the wedding night, the groom will have to open
his bride, more often than not with a double edged dagger. In some tribes, the
woman is sewn back each time her husband goes travelling and is opened again
each time he comes back. In case of divorce, the woman is sewn up to forbid her
any possibility of intercourse 29.
Let us mention that in the West, female
circumcision and especially infibulation were performed in the past. One of
those chastity belts was made by passing rings in the labia and vulva, wiring
them shut or closing them with a lock, the key of which was kept by the husband
especially when going away 30. In Russia, the Skopotzy (circumcisers) who are
Christians, have practiced infibulation to insure perpetual virginity: they
call upon Matthew 19:12: "... and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" 31. A particular type
of female circumcision practiced by the Kikuyu tribes in Kenya is said to be
performed today in some of the hospitals in Paris to accentuate the pleasure
potential in some women of the upper class of society. The clitoris is
disengaged and pulled back inside the vagina. Such a practice is said to add to
women's sexual pleasure 32.
CHAPTER II. RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS
I. RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF CIRCUMCISION
1. The sources of Muslim law
Muslim law has two main sources: the Koran
and the Sunnah (tradition: words and actions) of Mohammed, to which one must
add the igtihad, tenets of the schools of Muslim law through the centuries.
Nowadays a specific part of igtihad is
getting more and more important: namely the fatwas (opinions of Muslim
religious scholars), which are often worded in a language accessible to the
masses, defining which behaviour conforms to the Divine Will 33. Though
juridically non binding, the fatwas are nonetheless morally obligatory for the
believer and at times the first step toward the promulgation or the modification
of laws. They are given in writing or orally and are often published and sold
on a wide scale34. Many pertain to male and female circumcision.
We confine our study here to the works and
anthologies of modern fatwas, mostly Egyptian ones, referring to classical
books of Muslim law. This choice is justified by the fact that the public at
large seldom has access to the classical books.
2. The Koran
The Koran mentions neither male nor female
circumcision. An extensive interpretation of verse 2:124 shows some barely
traceable indication of it:
When Abraham was put to the test by his Lord,
through certain commandments, he carried them out. God then said: "I am
appointing you a guide for the people".
One of the commands given to Abraham, as a
test, was circumcision, as mentioned in some of the sayings of Mohammed.
Abraham is a model for the Muslim faithful by virtue of verse 16:123:
Then we inspired you (Mohammed) to follow the
religion (millat) of Abraham, a true believer...35.
It is relevant to note the rule of the Muslim
law according to which norms that were revealed to the prophets prior to
Mohammed are valid until unmistakably nullified. Thus the Bible, by a process
of referral, becomes a source of law for the Muslims. One can read:
God told Abraham: "...Here is our
alliance which shall be observed between me and you, i.e. thy race after thee,
may all your males be circumcised. You shall have the flesh of your foreskin
cut off and it shall be a sign of alliance between me and you...When they reach
their 8th day all your males shall be circumcised from generation to
generation... My alliance shall be branded in your flesh as a perpetual
alliance. The uncircumcised, the male whose foreskin has not been cut off, this
very life shall be cut off. He violated my alliance" 36.
Circumcision as a sign of alliance can only
be found in two other passages of the Bible 37. Elsewhere, it is more
narrative: King Saul demanded one hundred Philistine foreskins from David,
before he gave his consent to David marrying his daughter Mikal: "David...
thought it was a good deal in order to become the king's son in law... He went
to war...He killed 200 Philistine men, brought back their foreskins, counted
them in front of the king....So Saul... had to admit that Jehovah was on David's
side" 38.
This interpretation of the Koranic verses
with reference to the Bible is considered abusive by Imam Mahmud Shaltut (israf
fil-istidlal) 39. What is more, this textual argument based on Jewish law
concerns male circumcision only, not female circumcision that the Bible does
not mention and that the Jews do not practice (Falachas excepted). Al-Sukkari
answers that, according to Ibn Hagar, the Jews used to circumcise both sexes,
which is why he rejects male and female circumcision on the 7th day, so as not
to look like them. Even the authentic Bible - today's one is considered
falsified - does not contain any text related to female circumcision.
Nonetheless, the Muslims must practice it, if the Muslim law makes provision
for it 40.
3. The Sunnah
We will try here to glean, from the works of
contemporary Arab authors, the different sayings of Mohammed related to male
and female circumcision.
- The most often mentioned narration reports a
debate between Mohammed and Um Habibah (or Um 'Atiyyah). This woman, known as
an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated
with Mohammed. Having seen her, Mohammed asked her if she kept practicing her
profession. She answered affirmatively adding: "unless it is forbidden and
you order me to stop doing it". Mohammed replied: "Yes, it is
allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it (la
tanhaki), because it brings more radiance to the face (ashraq) and it is more
pleasant (ahza) for the husband". According to others, he said: "Cut
slightly and do not overdo it (ashimmi wa-la tanhaki), because it is more
pleasant (ahza) for the woman and better (ahab, from other sources abha) for
the husband". We shall hereinafter refer to this narration as the
exciser's narration.
- Mohammed said: "Circumcision is a
sunnah for the men and makrumah for the women". The term sunnah here means
that it is conform to the tradition of Mohammed himself, or simply a custom at
the time of Mohammed. The term makrumah is far from clear but we can translate
it into a honorable deed.
- Speaking to the Ansars' wives, Mohammed
said: "Cut slightly without exaggeration (ikhtafidna wa-la tanhikna),
because it is more pleasant (ahza) for your husbands".
- Someone came to Mohammed and became a
convert before him. Mohammed told him: "Shave off your unbeliever's hair
and be circumcised".
- Mohammed said: "Let him who becomes a
Muslim be circumcised, even if he is old".
- One asked Mohammed if an uncircumcised man
could go to pilgrimage. He answered: "Not as long as he is not
circumcised".
- Mohammed said: "Five norms define
fitrah: shaving of the pubis, circumcision, moustache trimming, armpit
depilation and nail clipping". Other narrations name ten norms amongst
which circumcision is always mentioned. The norms of fitrah are believed to be
those taught by God to His creation. The man in pursuit of perfection must
conform to those norms. They are not compulsory, but simply advisable
(mandubah), except for circumcision which is mandatory. Based on these
premises, Al-Sukkari believes Adam to have been the first circumcised man. His
descendants having neglected their obligation, it was reconfirmed to Abraham
and his descendants. Thus circumcision would be the sign which would
differentiate the believer from the non-believer. Therefore, circumcision is
the sign of Islam 41.
- Mohammed has stipulated: "If both
circumcised parts (khitanan) meet or if they touch each other, it is necessary
to wash before prayer". From this, it may be deduced that men and women
were circumcised in Mohammed's time.
The Shiites add a narration by Imam Al-Sadiq
stating: "Female circumcision is a makrumah, and is there anything better
than a makrumah?" They cite Al-Sadiq as the reporter of the exciser's
narration 42.
The supporters of circumcision themselves
(male or female) acknowledge that those narrations attributed to Mohammed offer
little credibility 43. Mahmud Shaltut states that they are neither clear nor
authentic44. Sheikh Abbas, Rector of the Muslim Institute at the Mosque of
Paris, is even more adamant:
If circumcision for the man (though not
compulsory) has an aesthetic and hygienic purpose, there is no existing
religious Islamic text of value to be considered in favour of female excision,
as proven by the fact that this practice is totally non-existent in most of the
Islamic countries. And if unfortunately some people keep practicing excision,
to the great prejudice of women, it is probably due to customs practised prior
to the conversion of these people to Islam 45.
4. Custom and silence of the law
Female circumcision having fragile
foundations in the Koran and the Sunnah, Al-Sukkari tries to strengthen those
foundations in calling upon custom, which constitutes a source of Muslim law.
For him, female circumcision has become the norm in as much as it is general,
it has been practiced for a long time and it is not contrary to any text of
religious law.
He refers to the rule according to which what
is not forbidden is allowed. Thus female circumcision, not being expressly
forbidden, remains permitted46. Even if narrations related to female
circumcision are not credible, none has shown up to forbid it or declare it
blameworthy. One of the principles of Muslim law is that it is better to apply
the norm that to give it up 47.
However, this author forgets that the Muslim
law allows a custom based on ignorance to be abolished. In effect, the Koran
states:
When they are told: "Come to what God
has revealed and to the Messenger". they say: "Sufficient for us is
what we found our parents doing". What if their parents lacked the
knowledge? And the guidance? (5:104).
Indeed, he reverses the rule. Instead of
supporting physical integrity, indirectly he speaks in favour of the principle of
mutilation.
II. RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS AGAINST CIRCUMCISION
1. God does not mutilate
This argument can be summed up as follows:
Can we imagine a God who demands that his believers be mutilated and branded on
their genitals the same as cattle? Doctor Nawal El-Saadawi, an Egyptian woman,
herself excised, writes:
If religion comes from God, how can it order
man to cut off an organ created by Him as long as that organ is not deceased or
deformed? God does not create the organs of the body haphazardly without a plan.
It is not possible that He should have created the clitoris in a woman's body
only in order that it be cut off at an early stage in life. This is a
contradiction into which neither true religion nor the Creator could possibly
fall. If God has created the clitoris as a sexually sensitive organ, whose sole
function seems to be the procurement of sexual pleasure for women, it follows
that He also considers such pleasure for women as normal and legitimate, and
therefore as an integral part of mental health 48.
It has very often been proclaimed that Islam
is at the root of female circumcision, and is also responsible for the
under-privileged and backward situation of women in Egypt and the Arab
countries. Such a contention is not true... Religion, if authentic in the
principles it stands for, aims at truth, equality, justice, love and a healthy
wholesome life for all people, whether men or women. There can be no true
religion that aims at disease, mutilation of the bodies of female children, and
amputation of an essential part of their reproductive organs 49.
Ren‚e Saurel goes over the argument again.
She writes:
The Koran, contrary to Christianism and
Judaism, permits and recommends that the woman be given physical and
psychological pleasure, pleasure found by both partners during the act of love.
Forcibly split, torn, and severed tissues are neither conducive to sensuality
nor to the blessed feeling given and shared when participating in the quest for
pleasure and the escape from pain 50.
Both sources mentioned above refer to
religion, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Those abstract notions contain the
most conflicting components. It is better to refer to written sources than to
abstract notions. It must also be pointed out that this argument is as valid against
male circumcision as it is against female circumcision. However, both authors
use it against female circumcision only.
2. Banning alteration of the human being
It is not difficult to find support for the
above argument in the Koran itself. Indeed, verse 4:119 does not allow man to
change God's creature:
[The devil said]: "I will mislead them,
and I will create in them false desires; I will order them to slit the ears of
cattles, and to deface the fair nature created by God".
This verse appears to condemn any change of
God's creation. It is referred to by Islamists to oppose permanent birth
control, be it by measures affecting the man or the woman 51. Oddly, male and
female circumcision enthusiasts forget this verse completely. They also forget
the following one: "He perfected everything He created" (32:7). Aziza
Kamel, adversary of female circumcision, refers to this verse and adds:
"Excision is a distortion of what God created because God is satisfied
with His creation" 52.
3. Man knows best
Mohammed had told some farmers not to
pollinate their date trees. That very year, the trees did not bear any dates.
Having returned to Mohammed for explanations, they were told: "You know
your worldly business better [than I do]".
The last passage of the narration was quoted
by Sheikh Hassan Ahmed Abu-Sabib from Sudan in his presentation to the Seminar
on Traditional Practices having consequences on the Health of Women and
Children (affecting Women's and Children's Health) in Africa (Dakar, Feb. 6-10,
1984). Strengthened by this narration, he comes to the conclusion that female
circumcision must be banned because medical science has proved it to be
harmful. Then, he says, the Koran forbids man to harm himself by virtue of
verse 2:195: "Do not throw yourselves with your own hands into
disaster". Elsewhere, Mohammed said: "Who harms a believer, harms me
and who harms me, harms God".
This Sudanese Sheikh did not pursue his
reasoning to its end. In the narration about the date trees, Mohammed did not
want to consider himself as infallible in botany and so admitted that the
farmers knew more than he did on the subject in spite of his quality as a
prophet. By analogy with female and male circumcision, this narration means
that Mohammed indeed could not be infallible on the subject and could be
contradicted by medical science. Our Sheikh does not go so far. He separates
Mohammed's answer from the whole narration about the date trees and just states
that Mohammed's narrations on female circumcision are not reliable, calling on
the authority of his counterpart, Imam Shaltut. He concludes that the issue of
male and female circumcision must be judged according to its disadvantages and
advantages 53.
In spite of this minor inconsistency, his
advice against female circumcision is the most explicit known to us on the part
of a contemporary religious Muslim leader.
4. The Al-Mahdawi case
All of the aforementioned religious arguments
are written solely and exclusively against female circumcision. Though they
could very well be used against male circumcision, their authors never do so
and not without purpose.
Indeed, the only Muslim author to have cast
doubts on male circumcision has had legal action brought against him and might
be sentenced to death for apostasy. I am speaking of (retired) Judge Mustafa
Kamal Al-Mahdawi, a personal friend of mine, who is today under a ferocious
attack lead by Libyan religious circles in the mosques as well in the press.
The preacher of the Mosque of the Prophet, in Medina, Saudi Arabia, published
in July 1992 a pamphlet handed out free of charge in Libya. In this pamphlet,
he asks the Muslim Arab League and the Islamic Conference to set up a
collective fatwa of all Muslim scholars against this judge and to execute him
as an apostate if he does not retract. As for his book, the preacher asks that
it be removed from the shelves, burned and forbidden to any reader. He blames
the judge for having, among other things, denied that male circumcision is
compulsory when there is unanimity in favour of it and when Mohammed was
Himself circumcised 54.
In fact, this Libyan judge insists that male
circumcision is a Jewish custom; the Jews believe that God would only see them
if they had distinctive marks such as circumcision or blood stained doors. He
refers here to God's command given to the Jews that the blood from sacrificed
cattle be put on jambs and lintel of houses at the time of Passover because He
intended to kill all firstborn in Egypt. God said to Moses and Aaron: "The
blood shall be a sign on the houses where you live. Seeing this sign, I shall
pass over those doorways and you shall escape the destructive calamity when I
strike down the people of Egypt" 55. The Libyan judge adds that the Koran
does not mention this "peculiar logic". For him, God does not devote
Himself to such banter no more than He created the foreskin as a superfluous
object destined only to be cut off56. He quotes verse 3:191 which states:
Our Lord, You did not create all this in
vain! Glory be to You! So spare us the agony of hell 57.
III.
QUALIFICATION OF CIRCUMCISION IN MUSLIM LAW
To define an act means to declare it
forbidden, reprehensible, permitted, advisable or mandatory. Those are the five
categories into which a Muslim believer classifies any act.
The adversaries of circumcision regard it as
forbidden when it concerns girls. On the other hand, they do not oppose male
circumcision and even consider it mandatory.
As for the supporters of male and female
circumcision, they are divided on the qualification that should be attached to
it. Three opinions have been expressed:
1. Mandatory for boys and girls
Imam Ahmad deems only the prayer and
pilgrimage of the circumcised to be worthy of acceptance. Imam Malik refuses
access to public office to, and testimony from, a non-circumcised person.
Others go as far as forbidding that meat killed by a non-circumcised person be
eaten58. This school puts forward the following justifications:
- Verse 16:120 requests that Mohammed follow
the path of Abraham. Abraham was circumcised at a very old age, when he was 80
years old, according to others 120, in spite of the suffering that circumcision
could cause him. Had it not been mandatory in Abraham's opinion, he would not
have subjected himself to it.
- Different sayings of Mohammed related to
circumcision and mentioned earlier.
- During the era of the Companions of
Mohammed, male and female circumcision was carried out.
- The condition of being non circumcised
keeps impurity in the body and renders prayer null and void, the same way as an
unclean mouth does.
- Circumcision (male and female) causes pain.
Pain is permissible only for benefit, punishment and obligation. Since benefit
and punishment are inapplicable, circumcision (male and female) is an
obligation 59.
2. Sunnah for both sexes
According to this school of thought, male and
female circumcision falls under sunnah, the meaning of which jurists disagree
upon. It can have two meanings: the tradition of Mohammed himself, or simply a
custom at the time of Mohammed60. Considered as sunnah, it would be advisable
and not mandatory 61.
Those in favour of this qualification call
upon the narration which compares circumcision (male and female) to a norm of
the above mentioned fitrah. As such, it has man's perfection as a purpose.
Though it is desirable, the Muslim believer is under no obligation to have it
done. They add that many persons joined Islam without Mohammed ever searching
[under their clothes] to see if they were circumcised or not 62.
3. Compulsory for the boys, sunnah or makrumah for the girls
The modern authors opt for this opinion.
Al-Sukkari states that male circumcision is mandatory because of the smell and
the repugnant, greasy substances secreted and kept under the foreskin. This
uncleanness renders prayer invalid. But as purity is necessary for prayer,
circumcision becomes compulsory according to the legal rule which states: what
is necessary to fulfil an obligation becomes in turn mandatory.
On the other hand, the female having no
foreskin and therefore no source of impurity "down there", female
circumcision is only advisable. Two reasons underlie the recommendation of
female circumcision:
- to fulfil makrumah granted by Mohammed.
- to avoid falling into a taboo 63.
For Professor 'Abd-al-Wahhab Khallaf, the term
makrumah means that female circumcision adds to the man's pleasure 64. Shaltut
states that female circumcision is a makrumah for the men who are not used to
feeling this protruding piece (za'idah) piece of flesh 65.
The majority leans toward the meaning of a
commendable or meritorious act on the part of the woman. It is Professor
Zakariyya Al-Birri's opinion that it is better to carry out female
circumcision. Anyone who does not do it does not sin if he is convinced in the
light of religious texts and doctor's advice that he is under no obligation to
conform (to it) 66. Al-Qaradawi leaves the choice to parents according to their
beliefs, in spite of the fact that he favours female circumcision, because it
protects girls' morality "especially nowadays" 67.
A fatwa from the Egyptian Fatwa Committee
dated May 28, 1949, has declared that abandoning female circumcision does not
constitute a sin68. Another fatwa from the same body dated June 23, 1951, is
more rigid. Not only does this fatwa not recognise the abandonment of female
circumcision as an option, but is further of the opinion that it is advisable
to carry it out because it curbs "nature". Moreover, this fatwa
considers doctors' opinions on the disadvantages of female circumcision
irrelevant (see Chapter III, Paragraph 3, point 2) 69. A third much more
detailed fatwa from the same institution dated January 29, 1981, is adamantly
opposed to giving up female circumcision. The author of this fatwa is the
present Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar, the most famous University of the Islamic
World in Cairo. He insists that it is impossible to abandon the lessons of
Mohammed in favour of the teaching of others, be they doctors, because medical
science evolves and does not remain constant. The responsibility of female circumcision
lies with the parents and with those in charge of the girl's welfare. Those who
do not abide by it do not do their duty 70.
4. Motives for the difference between boy and girl
Al-Sukkari tries to explain the difference
between boy and girl vis-...-vis the religious norm:
- Abraham circumcised himself and he would
not have done it, had it not been a duty. But there is no evidence that Abraham
ordered female circumcision 71. This is instead a command from Mohammed
according to the above mentioned exciser's narration.
- Male circumcision is a sign which separates
Muslim men from the non-Muslim ones. As for the woman, one should adopt a
respectful attitude toward her and not impose a physical examination to see if
she is circumcised or not.
- Male circumcision helps prevent many
diseases, cancer among them, and reduces having to resort to masturbation. This
opinion is also put forward by Imam Mahmud Shaltut for whom the boy's foreskin
hides germs harmful to his health, which is not the case for the girls 72.
5. Consequences of the qualification
Jurists have asked themselves if public
authority can force a Muslim to submit to circumcision, especially if he is
getting on years. The Zaydites and the Shafiites answer affirmatively.
According to the Hanafite School, if a group rejects male circumcision, the
Head of State must declare war (against this group). However, some say that a
man may be spared circumcision if it endangers his health. Al-Sukkari, a modern
author, is of the opinion that health nowadays is not a problem. The Muslim man
who fears for his health can ask a doctor to carry out the operation under
anaesthesia and with the help of modern equipment.
The Hanbalites say that male and female
circumcision is an Islamic ritual; the man can force his wife to be excised as
well as to force her to pray. The Ibadites consider as invalid the marriage of
a non-circumcised Muslim even if it was consummated. The woman may ask for
legal separation. If the husband gets circumcised after its consummation, the
marriage remains invalid; he must go through another ceremony in order to get
his wife back. For the Hanbalites, the non-circumcision of the husband is a
breach of contract giving the woman the choice of asking for divorce or
continuing the marriage. For some, the non-circumcised man has no right of
guardianship of a Muslim and no right to give his consent to the marriage of a
Muslim relative. In this case, the marriage is dissolved, except if it was
consummated.
Al-Sukkari, a modern author, grants the woman
the right to dissolve the marriage if the husband is not circumcised, because
his foreskin can be a vector of diseases. It can also be a source of repulsion,
thus preventing the realization of the objectives of marriage, id est love and
understanding between partners. The woman has a right to be married to someone
handsome and clean, Islam being the religion of cleanness and purity 73. Ahmad
Amin emphasizes the importance of circumcision in the Egyptian's mind by
telling this anecdote: a Sudanese tribe wanted to join Islam. The chief wrote
to a scholar of the Al-Azhar to ask him what was to be done. The scholar sent
him a list of demands, putting circumcision in first place. The tribe then
refused to become Muslim 74.
For the majority of believers, to belong to
Islam implies de facto male circumcision. In Java, to circumcise a boy is
translated by: to welcome someone in the bosom of Islam; in Algiers, during the
colonial era, the printed invitation to the religious ceremony named it in
French: baptˆme (baptism). In Muslim life, it is an important cause for family
celebration, which is not the case for female circumcision, always carried out
secretly 75. According to the Saudi religious authorities, a man who converts
to Islam must get circumcised, but in case he refuses to join Islam for fear of
the procedure, this demand may be postponed until the faith is stronger in his
heart 76.
On a social level, the non-circumcision of a
female has serious consequences. In some countries, the non-circumcised girls
do not get married and people then start talking about them, as if they were
guilty of misbehaviour, possessed by the devil. In the Egyptian countryside,
the matron practicing female circumcision delivers a certificate which is used
for the marriage 77. Wedad Zenie-Ziegler writes that the Egyptian country women
are surprised to learn that their sisters in Cairo are not excised. They burst
into laughter, interrupted by scandalized comments: "Really it is not
done? Girls remain like that uncut? And they don't become wild?" 78.
El-Masry reports the statement of an Egyptian midwife who had circumcised more
than 1000 girls. To her, "one should lynch the fathers who were opposed to
excision of their daughters, because these fathers were in fact willing to see
their girls become whores" 79. In Sudan, where infibulation is practiced,
brothers have tried to protect their young sisters from this torture. Most of
them were evicted from the paternal home after terrible quarrels, the parents
accusing them of being depraved and of trying to transform their sisters into
shameless creatures. Very few succeeded: but, to put an end to the neighbours'
gossip, they had to bring their sisters to live under their own rooves in
Khartoum or Atbara. "Because in Sudan, it is as unusual not to sew girls'
genitals as in the West, it is unusual not to bath the children. It sets the
tongues wagging" 80.
IV. MODALITY OF
CIRCUMCISION ACCORDING TO MUSLIM LAW
1. Male circumcision
According to classical Muslim jurists, male
circumcision involves the cutting of the foreskin, preferably the whole
foreskin. If the man has two penises, some say that both should be circumcised,
others say that only the one passing urine should be circumcised. If the child
was born circumcised, some are of the opinion he should be left as such, while
for others, the knife should be passed over the emplacement of the foreskin to
fulfil the Commandment. If the circumcision is incomplete, it should be
completed 81.
2. Female circumcision
Al-Sukkari, a modern author, describes female
circumcision as follows: "For a start, God should be called upon by saying
the opening statement: in the name of God, most gracious, most merciful,
followed by praise to God and prayer to the Prophet, the author of this supreme
makrumah". Female circumcision must be carried out by one male or female
surgeon of Muslim faith and devout appearance, knowledgeable of the teaching of
Mohammed. The best medical means must be used to reduce pain. Female
circumcision must be done by day to allow the physician to perform in full day
light, but also in full secrecy; only her mother or her tutor must be present,
or the one who feels the most compassion for the girl 82. He does not clarify
what female circumcision consists of. For Gad-al-Haq, female circumcision consists
of "cutting the skin which is located above the urinary orifice without
exaggeration and without rooting it out" 83. Al-Sha'rawi stipulates that
if the girl does not have any flesh protruding, circumcision should not be done
84.
What is described above as in compliance with
sunnah remains theoretical. In fact, it is rather clitoridectomy (performed in
Egypt) or infibulation (performed in Sudan and Somalia). In Sudan, a study has
brought to light that 64% of female circumcisions are done by the traditional
matrons, 35% by midwives and 0.7% by physicians 85.
3. Circumcision of the hermaphrodite
Classical authors' opinions have differed
regarding hermaphrodites, persons with both male and female genitalia. Some say
that both must be circumcised, while others say that only the organ passing
urine should be cut because it implies rights of inheritance 86. Finally, for
others, one must delay circumcision until it is possible to tell which one of
the two is predominant. Cautiously, Al-Sukkari, a modern author, chooses the
first opinion, meaning circumcision of both sexes, to minimize the chances of
mistake 87.
4. Age for male and female circumcision
Jurists are not unanimous regarding the age
at which circumcision should be carried out. Different opinions are presented:
any time; at puberty; before 10 years of age (the age when one has often to hit
the child to force him to pray); at about 7 years for the boy; on the seventh
day (some take the day of birth into consideration, others not); especially not
on the seventh day or before (because it is a Jewish custom and one does not
want to be put in the same category with them). Al-Mawardi suggests that
circumcision be done at 7 years of age at the latest, but preferably at 7 days
or at 40 days, except in case of inconvenience. That is Al-Sukkari's opinion
for the boys. For the girls, he suggests the age of 7 to 10 years, to help them
cope with the procedure 88.
According to testimony gathered by Wedad
Zenie-Ziegler, female circumcision in Egypt is done in principle one week after
birth, but it can be done at 2 months, sometimes at 7 months or even 7 years89.
Nawal El-Saadawi says that in Egypt it takes place at the age of 7 or 8, before
the girl starts menstruating 90.
Jurists have asked themselves if persons who
died without circumcision should be circumcised. The majority of legists reject
such an idea because it affects the deceased's physical integrity (hurmah) and
exhibits his private part ('awrah); moreover, it is useless, the goal of
circumcision being to fulfil an act of worship and to be clean for prayer,
which is of no use to the deceased. For others, circumcision of the deceased is
necessary; his foreskin is placed in the shroud. They call on a narration by
Mohammed, according to which one must do to the dead what is done to those
getting married. Al-Sukkari, a modern author, leans toward the first opinion
91.
CHAPTER III. REASON IN AID OF RELIGION
The Koran says: "Noone questions Him
about anything He does, but men are questioned" (21:23). God does not have
to justify his norms even if Muslim jurists are of the opinion that divine
norms are intended to bring good to Man. The criteria of goodness elude Man
most of the time.
However, there is a tendency among the
Muslims as well as the Jews today, to try to justify religious norms a
posteriori, conferring beneficial results upon them, real or fictitious. It is
a recourse to reason to justify religion. Cases in point are circumcision and
dietary taboos. It proves that the idea of God hurting human beings simply in
order to brand them like cattle is not accepted anymore.
The supporters of male and female
circumcision, after proving the existence of a related religious norm, will
buckle down to demonstrate the advantages of circumcision as well as the
disadvantages of non-circumcision, in order to comfort the believer, while
answering back to those opposed to it. As for the opponents of female
circumcision, they, unless they are unbelievers, rejecting any religious
justification, also fight on two fronts: after denying the existence of a
religious norm prescribing female circumcision (the only one they are
interested in), they try to prove its harmful characteristics in order to ban
it.
And if reason does not succeed in proving
that religion is correct? Then, let it be challenged, as will be seen further
on.
1. Advantages of male circumcision
Muslim authors skim over male circumcision.
They only see advantages and, most of all, the subject does not trigger any
debate in the West. According to Al-Hadidi (an opponent of female
circumcision), male non-circumcision can cause penile infections arising from
urine droplets. It can develop into cancer, requiring the penis to be amputated
entirely 92. Circumcision is even believed to prevent cancer in the circumcised
man's partner, as mentioned by Doctor Al-Fangari, who goes on to state that it
helps to extend the length of copulation, thanks to the liberation of the glans
93. Their Jewish counterparts make the same type of arguments. It is enough to
have the Christians, to whom Saint-Paul suggests circumcision in their heart
rather than in their flesh, turn green with envy 94! If only Saint Paul could
have heard our Jewish and Muslim medical experts before rejecting the
obligation to circumcise!
Imam Shaltut does not find any basis for male
and female circumcision, be it in the Koran or in the Sunnah from Mohammed.
Therefore it must be judged according to the general Islamic consensus which
forbids hurting anyone, unless advantages outnumber disadvantages. For the
boys, he states that circumcision is beneficial because it cuts off the
foreskin which harbours filth and promotes cancer and other diseases. As such,
it is a protective and preventive measure. Thus its mandatory quality in Muslim
law 95.
Logically, if male circumcision were
beneficial, it should be generalized. Male circumcision cannot however be
justified solely on the basis of its usefulness in certain pathological
conditions. A foot may be amputated under medical imperative if it is
gangrenous and amputation will then certainly be beneficial. Nevertheless,
nobody would call for generalized foot amputation among the followers of any
given religion 96. The argument is compelling, unless it can be shown that the
relevant religious adepts have penises noticeably different from those of their
fellow humans.
Let us point out here that circumcision has
its enthusiasts among Christians who believe the Bible to be a scientific book.
This is especially the case in the U.S.A. where obstetricians "sever at
birth the foreskins of future Methodists, Adventists, Catholics, Sectarians of
Love, if not good brave Atheists". To them, uncircumcised males "can
only be country people and half-witted" 97. In that country, the number of
new-born who are circumcised is estimated at 50%. But in 1975, the American
health commission stated that circumcision was not a good hygienic measure.
Since then, circumcision has been reduced considerably 98. The pro-circumcision
people then launched a campaign to persuade the commission to reverse its
decision, claiming that circumcision prevents infantile urinary tract
infections and even AIDS transmission, a claim denied by Swedish experts 99.
2. Disadvantages of male circumcision
As noted above, male circumcision is of no
interest to most people. Doctor G‚rard Zwang, quoted above, stands out as one
of the very few opponents of male circumcision in France. Not only does he not
see any advantages, but he notices disadvantages. He writes:
One must be extremely suspicious when
magicians and shamans try to irrefutably legitimate ritual sexual mutilations
(unless one belongs to the clan of those incurably naive ethnographers). As
heirs of the only extra-European culture touched by some sort of scientific
thinking and often contributing to its development, it is the Judaizers who
provide the so-called "logical" arguments in favour of circumcision
100.
He names the five "reasonable"
reasons produced by the Western partisans of circumcision, reasons which
support those given by the Muslims:
1.
Circumcision testifies to the legitimate concern of lifting the sexuality of
the individual to perfection;
2.
Circumcision is a good hygienic precaution;
3.
Circumcision prevents masturbation;
4.
Circumcision prevents cancer;
5.
Circumcision allows better control at the "plateau" stage.
After taking apart those reasons one by one
101, he points out that the foreskin of the infant acts as a sheath preventing
the glans from soaking permanently in urine and protecting it from irritations
and inflammations due to contact with clothing, soaked swaddling clothes and
diapers. He insists that circumcision at birth is "practically always
responsible for inflamed stricture of the urinary meatus". The protective
function of the foreskin for the glans and the penis retains its usefulness
during erotic activities, thus the importance of the foreskin at the affective
level during childhood, youth and adulthood 102.
He concludes that "there is no [medical]
reason to systematically deprive all new-born, little boys or men of an integral
part of the normal human anatomy". Even for foreskins with problems, he
advises against circumcision and prefers those simple, surgical procedures
which retain the foreskin. He recommends that plastic surgeons apply themselves
to mastering the technique of possible preputial reconstruction for circumcised
patients suffering from "balanic peeling", one of the consequences of
circumcision 103.
As for surgeons requested to perform
circumcision, he asks them to refuse to comply. If it is an adult who makes the
request, the surgeon has the right to raise the matter of conscience, as some
do, based on liberalism, to avoid carrying out abortions. If it is a normal
child brought in by his parents, "the surgeon is entitled to call upon the
impossibility of committing an assault and battery on a minor and advise them
to wait until their offspring reaches his majority" 104.
It might be necessary to add to the doctors'
advice, the psychologists' answer to these questions: what is the influence of
circumcision on the victims of paranoia105? on the conscious or unconscious
male rage and violence in the American culture? on the conflicts between
Muslims themselves or between Jews and Muslims? It would be also useful to know
what is the relation between circumcision and situational homosexuality (by
opposition to constitutional homosexuality).
1. Advantages of female circumcision in compliance with the sunnah
Circumcision not carried out according to the
sunnah is forbidden by all Muslim religious circles. For some, "the
practice of female circumcision as it is carried out on their daughters by some
women from backward countries, is an offence punishable by law"106. Nobody
comes to its defense even if it is the most practiced form of circumcision in
Muslim countries. This condemnation is based mostly on the exciser's narration,
mentioned earlier. What is strange in this case is that those very religious
circles do not try to use this narration in a positive way to fight the
practice. As an example, it is estimated that 89.2% of the women in North Sudan
are circumcised: 82.3% by infibulation; only 19.2% of Christian women are
circumcised that way. More Christians (57.7%) than Muslims (20.8%) appear to
favour abolition of this practice for their daughters 107.
If these religious scholars, all male
chauvinists, are opposed to female circumcision not in compliance with the
sunnah, they nevertheless do approve of it when it is sunnah-conform. This type
of female circumcision, by the way, is not described fully: for some, it is
only removal of a minimal amount of clitoris skin in application of the
exciser's narration; for others, it involves the whole clitoris and labia
minora.
The goal of defending female circumcision in compliance
with the sunnah is expressed in no uncertain terms by Al-I'tissam, an Islamic
magazine from Cairo. This magazine protests against the WHO, accusing the
organization of "distorting the truth of Islam"; Al-I'tissam requests
Al-Azhar and all religious scholars to "open their eyes and be on the
alert for those ideas coming to us from outside, so we can fight them, prove
their foolishness and save Islamic customs" 108. Here are the advantages
of female circumcision according to its male supporters:
A) It maintains cleanliness
Doctor Hamid Al-Ghawabi states that bad
smells in women, cleanliness notwithstanding, can only be eliminated by cutting
off the clitoris and labia minora109.
B) It prevents diseases
The number of nymphomaniacs is less among
circumcised women. The husband may catch this disease and even die of it 110.
Female circumcision prevents vaginal cancer 111 and swelling of the clitoris
which could drive the woman to masturbation or homosexual relations 112.
C) It brings calm and gives radiance to
the face
Female circumcision shields the girl from
nervousness at an early age and prevents her from getting a yellow face. This
statement is based on a narration by Mohammed: "Circumcision is makrumah
for women" and "give them a glowing face" 113. The exciser's
narration is also quoted to say that circumcision makes a woman's face more
beautiful and makes her more attractive for her husband 114. According to a
supporter of female circumcision, the latter brings good health and feminine
grace to the girl and protects her morality, chastity and honour, maintaining
within reason, of course, the necessary sexual sensitivity 115.
D) It keeps the couple together and
prevents drug use
Doctor Hamid Al-Ghawabi admits that female
circumcision does reduce the sexual instinct in women, but he sees this as a
positive effect. With age, the male sexual instinct lessens. His circumcised
wife will then be at the same level as him. If she was not, her husband would
be unable to satisfy her, which then would lead him to drug-use in order to
succeed 116.
E) It prevents her falling into what is
forbidden
This is the most frequently cited reason.
Professor Al-'Adawi from Al-Azhar says that female circumcision is makrumah,
that is helps (the woman) "to 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
God shows compassion" 117.
Judge 'Arnus says that female circumcision
diminishes sexual instinct which, if not kept in control, reduces the person to
the condition of an animal, but if this sexual instinct does not exist, then
circumcision reduces her to a lifeless state. He favours moderation and notes
that intact men and women have, more often than not, a "one track
mind" 118. Salim, Chairman of the Muslim Supreme Court (abolished in
1955), reiterates that female circumcision is a makrumah, a meritorious action,
that the woman is under no obligation to submit to, but preferably she should.
He adds that circumcision protects girls from infection, swelling of her
external genitalia and from strong psychic reactions and sexual excitement
which, if repressed, lead to neurosis or, if unleashed, lead to the path of
vice. This happens especially during youth, when hormones of reproduction are
at their peak. Salim goes on to describe this circumcision. The procedure
consists of cutting off the bulging part of the clitoris which is out of the
hood "so as not to become a cause of arousal while the girl is moving,
rubbing against her clothing, riding animals, etc... Thus its name khafd: to
lower the level" 119. Gad-al-Haq, Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar, adds that our
times call for female circumcision "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 in a depraved
society" 120.
2. Disastrous consequences of any kind of female circumcision
Opponents of female circumcision reject it because
of the seriousness of the complications which depend on the method adopted.
A) Physical and mental damage
Many complications may occur after female
circumcision. Doctor Mahran classifies them as follows:
· Immediate
complications: post-operative shock, pain, haemorrhages, infections, urinary
complications and accidental injuries to surrounding organs.
· Later physical
complications: painful scars, keloid formation, labial adherences, clitoridal
cysts, vulva mutilation, kidney stones, sterility.
· Psychosexual
complications: in the woman: a sense of loss of her femininity, lack of libido,
less frequent coitus, absence of orgasm, depression and psychosis, high rate of
divorce; in the man: premature ejaculation, polygamy.
· Obstetric
complications 121.
There is no surgical technique which will
ever repair this mutilation, which will ever bring back the erogenous
sensitivity of the amputated receptors. The erotic function in an excised woman
is destroyed for ever. The surgeon can only correct the complications; if the
mutilated woman's genitalia will never again give her pleasure, at least it
should not cause her undue suffering 122.
The Muslim enthusiasts of female circumcision
do not deny those complications, but state that they arise out of the manner in
which the surgery is performed, mostly because nobody pays attention to the
conditions laid down by Muslim law. Al-Sukkari writes: if one goes to a barber
for an appendectomy, must we conclude that this form of surgery has never been
provided for in an Islamic book and thus should be banned because the way it is
performed is wrong? He adds that female circumcision has been a practice for
centuries and is a custom accepted by Muslim law. The so-called consequences
never occurred in the past. And if we hear of them today, the responsibility
lies with those who perform it 123.
B) Drug use
We saw earlier that the enthusiasts of female
circumcision called sunnah plead in favour of it because it prevents the use of
drugs. The opponents use the reverse argument 124. The link between female
circumcision and the hashish plague in Egypt has been widely exposed by
El-Masry. Female circumcision distorts sexual relations: "Very few healthy
males can fully succeed in bringing a circumcised woman to orgasm. She has lost
her capacity for pleasure. The man will soon have to admit that he alone cannot
do it. There is only one solution: hashish". He quotes many references,
including Police Chief Safwat for whom: "narcotics are widely used in
Egypt, because they are linked in people's minds to sexual activities,
themselves linked to excision, unknown in Europe". Doctor Hanna adds:
"The man will resort to narcotics to satisfy his wife sexually. Excision
is responsible for her lack of arousal and the husband has to take drugs to be
able to hold his erection as long as necessary". He states that women are
the ones to request that their husbands use drugs before sex: "They know
from experience that it is their only chance of reaching orgasm, for hashish is
the only cure for their mutilated clitoris" 125. The Cairo magazine
Al-Tahrir draws the following conclusion in its issue of August 20, 1957:
"If you want to fight against narcotics, ban excision" 126.
The same link is observed between female
circumcision and narcotics in Yemen where the plague of qat is widespread. An
attempt to ban it in the British Colony of Aden, in April 1957, almost
triggered a revolt. Yemenis saw in this measure "an infringement upon
their basic rights". Women themselves showed their reprobation, claiming
it was an attack on their conjugal lives. Since June 24, 1958, the use of qat
has been legal in Aden 127.
C) Familial problems
The woman, having no sexual release, becomes
rebellious and neurotic. Instead of protecting her morality, female circumcision
leads her elsewhere looking for sexual satisfaction at any cost. Thus the
obsessive belief in djinn (zar), which does not exist anywhere else but in
Egypt "as if genies (djinns) could only live in Egypt" 128.
D) Ineffectiveness in preventing diseases
For Doctor Al-Hadidi, there is no medical
value in female circumcision, contrary to male circumcision, since the woman
does not have a foreskin retaining germs 129. Doctor Nawal El-Saadawi denies also
that female circumcision will reduce the incidence of genital cancer 130.
III. MITIGATED POSITION
OF RELIGIOUS CIRCLES CONFRONTED WITH REASON
The arguments on costs and benefits of male
and female circumcision might be of some value if one accepts an absolute
parameter to begin with: respect for physical integrity. Any infringement upon
the latter must be forbidden or permitted only on the basis of the costs and
benefits of circumcision. At present, this seems to be the case neither among
Muslims, nor among others, especially where male circumcision is concerned.
As for female circumcision, as we said
earlier, Muslim religious circles are opposed to it, if it is not conform to
sunnah, mostly because of the exciser's narration. As far as sunnah itself is
concerned, those circles refuse to condemn it on principle and the criteria
mentioned above, even if differences of opinion can be noticed among them.
1. To apply the norm for the norm's sake
Hamrush, Chairman of the fatwa Committee at
Al-Azhar, rejects the idea that female circumcision prevents diseases or keeps
girls healthy since, contrary to boys, they do not have a foreskin to harbour
filth. He also rejects the idea that it is a protection of the woman's honour
and morality, keeping her from throwing caution to the winds. If it were the
case, then one would assume that circumcision is an obligation, and not just a
makrumah. However, the Sheikh holds the opinion that female circumcision should
be performed to fulfil the teaching of Mohammed 131.
2. The norm has benefits unknown to reason
Professor Al-Laban says that simple
scientific observation must not be used to destroy the norms established by God
(including male and female circumcision) and announced by Mohammed, but rather
confirm them 132. If we do not understand the wisdom of those norms, the
deficiency is to be found in our reasoning, not with God. The Islamic law is
the final law and is to rule at all times. Our human brains cannot possibly
find fault with it. Mohammed does not speak from the heat of passion 133. He
explains how science confirms the religious norm. Sunnah circumcision lets the
blood vessels heal (what other types of circumcision do not) and makes
purification easy once the excrescence is cut off because it is this part which
retains urine and menstrual fluid. This wisdom of the Islamic norm was
subsequently acknowledged by science 134.
In an Egyptian fatwa of June 23, 1951, it is
said:
Medical theories relative to diseases and to
their cure are not constant; they are subjected to changes with time and
research. Therefore, it is impossible to use them as grounds to criticize
female circumcision. The Lawmaker, wise, expert and knowledgeable, uses his
wisdom to rectify the human creation. Experience has taught us that, given
time, the true meaning of the Lawmaker's wisdom, which was hidden, is unveiled
to us 135.
3. Neither misdeed nor interdiction
Al-Sukkari states that Mohammed never
indicated any reservations regarding the harmfulness of female circumcision.
How, in these conditions, could any ordinary man forbid it under this pretense?
Can we imagine the Prophet keeping silent about something hurtful to the
girl136? Man has no power to allow or to forbid, only God does, and his wishes
are set out in the Koran or by His Prophet137. If in spite of that, some
countries forbid female circumcision, it is a State decision and does not make
any difference: the religious law allows it 138.
4. To maintain the custom in the absence of misdeeds
Imam Shaltut, as mentioned above, does not
see any reason for male or female circumcision, either in the Koran or in the
Sunnah of Mohammed. To him, female circumcision has no medical value, the girl
having no foreskin to hold filth. He packs into one sack those for and those
against female circumcision: both groups go too far. He comes to the conclusion
that female circumcision could be a makrumah for men who are not used to
feeling the clitoris protruding; for the girl, it comes to the same as taking
care of her beauty, dabbing perfume or removing axillary hair 139. Elsewhere,
Imam Shaltut is in favour of keeping the tradition of female circumcision until
proven harmful 140.
Sheikh Al-Nawawi comes to another result
through the same reasoning. For him, the narrations of Mohammed regarding
female circumcision are weak and do not have a raison d'ˆtre. Islam aimed to
moderate this practice among Arabs and it is still performed in this moderate
form, without ever becoming the rule, apart from exceptional cases. One cannot
make a rule out of one exception 141.
A less clear stand-point is taken by
Al-Banna, Egyptian Deputy Minister for Religious Affairs. To him, female
circumcision cannot be separated from the benefit criterion: God does not
burden us, if there is no benefit. So, if there is any value to circumcision,
one must abide by it. If not, one must give it up. Competent physicians must
take a stand, having considered all girls from different climates, because the
problem might not be the same in every country, or even with every girl. If a
girl is in peculiar circumstances, she must be circumcised; if not, let Nature
take its course, as God intended it. As long as no study has been done, Muslims
are free to go either way 142.
According to Professor Khallaf, physicians
may not condemn female circumcision based on isolated cases alone, but compare
excised and uncircumcised girls and then give their opinion. If they conclude
that female circumcision is harmful and as such, they decide to forbid it, the
prohibition will neither be contrary to a religious text, nor to the unanimous
position of religious scholars 143.
5. Permitted but soon to be forbidden because of adverse consequences
Doctor 'Abd-al-Wahid presents a strange
reasoning, to say the least. After stating that female circumcision is
forbidden the same way as it is forbidden to chop off one's finger, he admits
that the Lawmaker (God) gave permission for the sunnah, any excess being
forbidden. However, he adds that this form of circumcision is allowed, but not
mandatory and suggests that it be forbidden due to its medical and
psychological consequences, which he recounts in detail 144.
6. It must be forbidden
The most daring and most coherent opinion
coming from a religious leader against female circumcision is that of Sheikh
Abu-Sabib, a Sudanese, whom we mentioned earlier. He spoke at the Seminar on
Traditional Practices (Dakar, 1984). The narrations of Mohammed about female
circumcision are not reliable. They and the Koran do not require anyone to
suffer, when science proves the harm done by this mutilation 145.
Only the two last-mentioned opinions urge the
banning of female circumcision and opt in favour of physical integrity. Others
take great care to saying nothing about prohibition, even if some leave the
choice up to the believer. Let us study this prohibition at the State level.
CHAPTER IV. LEGAL PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
Female circumcision brings up many questions:
· Do we have the
right to judge the customs of other societies and if so, on which criteria?
· Can we remain
indifferent, in the name of "difference", to mutilations inflicted
upon young children?
· Must we make a
distinction between the different kinds of circumcision?
· Must we forbid
circumcision immediately and completely or progressively?
· May the practice be
allowed in hospitals on a temporary basis?
The Muslim
circles in favour of female circumcision see an imperialistic action in the
Western campaign against it. Al-Sukkari writes that, if some are trying to
forbid it, "it is because the West has succeeded in imposing secular
materialistic views on our sciences, our tradition, our artistic culture" 146. Imam Shaltut who accepts the idea of forbidding
female circumcision if proven harmful, underlines the fact that it should not
be prohibited under pressure from others - a polite nod toward the West - , but
only if proven harmful 147.
Jomo Kenyatta, late President of Kenya, used
to say: "Excision and infibulation unite us tightly; they prove our
fecundity" 148. To which Pierre Leulliette replies:
Millions of children between the age of 2 and
14 are horribly tortured in an atmosphere of collective hysteria, in contempt
of their genitalia, in scorn of their bodies, in defiance of their lives...
That barbarian culture! Is it not the lowest manifestation of the unlimited,
omnipresent phallocracy? Those mutilations! Aren't they first and foremost an
example of man acting out his most secret hatred and deepest fear of woman 149?
This problem is now on the agenda of
international organizations. On July 10, 1958, the Economic and Social
Committee of the United Nations invited the WHO "to undertake a study on
the persistence of customs involving ritual practices on girls and on the
measures in effect or planned to put an end to those practices" 150. The
answer was clear: "[The World Health Assembly] believes that the ritual
practices in question, resulting from social and cultural conceptions, are not
within the WHO's jurisdiction" 151. And this, in spite of an overwhelming
report prepared by the WHO's very own Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office
152.
In a communication on excision dated
September 23, 1980, UNICEF explained that its approach to eradicating a 2000
year old cultural and traditional practice "is based on the belief that
the best way to handle the problem is to trigger awareness through education of
the public, members of the medical profession and practitioners of traditional
health care with the help of local collectivities and their leaders" 153.
In 1984, the Inter-African Committee
stipulated that "for understandable psychological reasons, it is the black
women who should have the say in the matter". This committee asked for
restraint, in order that the project might be successful, claiming that
"the wave of uncontrollable and violent denunciations of those mutilations
on the part of Western countries" was doing more harm than good 154. On
the subject of legal prohibition, this same committee, in 1984, warned against
"untimely haste which would result in rash legal measures that would never
be enforced" 155. As for the health professionals, they were quite
satisfied with themselves in condemning "the medicalisation and
modernisation of the female circumcision procedure, as non-conform to medical
ethics" and to advise that "no medical or paramedical personnel be
allowed to practice it", for the same reason 156.
This problem is puzzling for the Western
countries. Dominique Vernier writes:
As soon as the first preliminary
investigations of cases on excision started [in France] (the Press mentions
them as early as 1982-83), the Justice Department was put in an awkward
position and has been ever since 157.
This perplexity is due to the principles of
the French penal code. Indeed, the parents have no intention to do violence to
their children or to batter them, but rather intend to respect a custom,
without the application of which their daughters, once adults, would not be
able to integrate into their country of origin 158. On the other hand, in
practice, it is easy for a couple who want their daughter excised to take her
back to her country of origin, paralysing the law of the adopted country. Last,
but not least, even if the countries of origin adopt some laws against those
practices, those laws would not be able to defeat a massively accepted
practice, which has become an integral part of that society 159.
II. RIGHT TO DIFFERENCE OR
INDIFFERENCE
This debate
about the right to be different was settled in favour of the girl's right to
physical integrity (but not the boy's).
The WHO gave
up its above mentioned reservations of 1959. It became involved in 1977 in the
creation of the first Workshop on female excision. In February 1979, its
Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office organized in Khartoum the first
International Seminar on Traditional Practices affecting Women's and Children's
Health. This Seminar recommended that specific national policies be adopted in
order to abolish female circumcision 160.
In June 1982, the WHO made a formal declaration of its position on excision to
the Committee of Human Rights of the United Nations. The WHO approved the
recommendations made at the Seminar in Khartoum and added: "It has always
been the WHO's opinion that female circumcision should never be performed by
health professionals in any situation under any conditions, be it in hospitals
or other specialized settings" 161. The most recent stand was taken in
1989: the Regional Committee of the WHO for Africa passed a resolution urging
the participating governments:
· to adopt
appropriate policies and strategies in order to eradicate female circumcision;
· to forbid
medicalisation of female circumcision and to discourage health professionals
from performing such surgery 162.
A turnaround was also made by the
Inter-African Committee. Whereas in 1984, it had warned against promulgating
laws against female circumcision, it requested such laws in 1987, because
"neither the efforts nor the research nor the campaigns ever had any real
impact" 163. Three years later, it reinforced its position, requesting promulgation
of specific laws "forbidding the practice of female genital mutilations
and other sexual abuses and making provision for sentencing anyone guilty of
such practices". This law should provide "an especially severe
punishment for health professionals" 164.
Some Western countries have timidly followed
in the footsteps of the two above-mentioned organizations.
For instance, in 1981, France adopted article
312, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, stating:
When acts of violence or privation have been
habitually inflicted, the sentence to be imposed upon the guilty party shall
be: life imprisonment if there is mutilation, amputation, deprivation of the
use of a limb, blindness, loss of an eye and other permanent disabilities or
death, even if the guilty party did not intend such a result.
This article is invoked against female
circumcision even though the word is not mentioned in the text. In Sweden, a
1982 law forbids any operation on an external organ aiming at mutilating it or
altering it definitely, whether or not consent is given165. Great Britain did
the same in 1985 166.
In Switzerland, article 122 of the Penal Code
stipulates:
Anyone who has mutilated a person's body, one
of the limbs or one of the important organs, or rendered the limb or the organ
unfit to function, will be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years reclusion or to
between 6 months and 5 years of imprisonment.
Moreover, in 1983, the Central Committee for
Medical Ethics of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences took a very firm
position against female circumcision and its practice by medical professionals
167.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is
not clear about it. Article 24, paragraph 3 states:
States Parties shall take all effective and
appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices
prejudicial to the health of children.
No definition is given of the expression
"traditional practices detrimental to the health of children". The
travaux pr‚paratoires are of no help either. The definition therefore is left
up to the Member States. Those States will surely not hesitate to quote article
29 paragraph 1.c of this Convention:
The development of respect for the child's
parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national
values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he
or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own.
Lastly, let us point out the London
Declaration born out of the First Study Conference on Genital Mutilation of
Girls in Europe/Western world (London, July 6-8, 1992). This Declaration
states: "Any form of genital mutilation or genital injury to the girl
child is a violation of her basic human rights, and must be abolished". It
asks national groups and individuals to "promote a framework for legal
action, based on either specific anti-FGM [female genital mutilation] or on
general laws against the injury to the body of the child". This
Declaration "urges all governments and all health authorities to stand
firm against any attempt to medicalise the genital mutilation of or genital
injury to the girl child" 168.
III. DISTINCTION BETWEEN
DIFFERENT FORMS OF CIRCUMCISION
One must reiterate here that a distinction is
wrongfully made at the medical and intellectual level between male
circumcision, which is generally accepted, and female circumcision. Neither the
WHO nor the Inter-African Committee, nor UNICEF, nor the London Declaration,
nor the Western laws forbidding female circumcision make any mention of male
circumcision. It is not mentioned in the travaux pr‚paratoires to article 24,
paragraph 3 of the Convention for the Rights of the Child either. Female
circumcision is sometimes mentioned, but never male circumcision 169.
One might have logically expected that those
Western organizations and laws would draw a distinction between the different
forms of female circumcision, in as much as minimal female circumcision can be
compared to male circumcision. But this is not the case as already seen. During
the above mentioned Conference of European Studies on Female Genital
Mutilation, the Netherlands tried to have such a distinction made, to no avail;
the WHO vetoed it. Doctor Mehra, representing the WHO, explained to me that
this organization fears it would be impossible to control the practice if one
permitted one particular form 170.
This firm attitude opposed to all forms of
female circumcision is not shared by Muslim law. The latter makes a distinction
between the permitted female circumcision called sunnah, while other forms,
though widely practiced, are condemned by religious circles. This distinction
seems also to apply in Muslim countries.
In Sudan, a law of 1946 classified
infibulation as an infraction punishable by a fine and imprisonment. It was
abrogated under public pressure and replaced by an authorization for
professional midwives to practice sunnah 171.
On an undated flyer, written in Arabic, the
Sudanese Association of Struggle against Traditional Practices states:
· Female circumcision
(khafd) is an attack on the physical integrity and an alteration of the human
being created by God in the very best way and in the very best form.
· Female circumcision
is a savage butchery that divine religions do not allow.
· Female circumcision
is neither a duty nor a sunnah, but a practice of the pre-Islamic era
(al-gahiliyyah: the era of ignorance) against which the Prophet warned us in
his narration: "Cut lightly and do not overdo it as it is more pleasant
for the woman and better for the husband".
· Female circumcision
does not protect chastity which is better guarded by education promoting good
morality and healthy teaching of Islam.
· Female circumcision
preceded religions and is practiced by many peoples of different religions and
beliefs of which only the Sudan, Egypt and Somalia are Muslim.
· Therefore, stop
circumcising girls.
This organization, while rejecting female
circumcision in general, seems, in the 3rd paragraph, to propose the sunnah,
instead of the pharaonic circumcision now prevalent in Sudan. A document
prepared by the National Committee of Social Assistance in collaboration with
UNICEF-Khartoum is doing the same. This document explains that the light form
of circumcision is named sunnah which means it is conform with the tradition of
Mohammed: it is a way of legitimating it rather that eradicating it 172.
A similar attitude is adopted in Egypt. This
country has promoted a governmental decree (No. 74-1959) regarding female
circumcision. The text is far from clear. It states:
1.
1. It is forbidden for physicians to perform the surgical procedure of female
circumcision. If one wishes it, then only partial circumcision may be carried,
but not total circumcision.
2.
2. Female circumcisions are forbidden in the clinics of the Ministry of Health.
3.
3. Certified midwives have no right to perform any surgical procedure
whatsoever including female circumcision 173.
This text is taken from a recent collective
report on the woman's life and her health. The authors state that this text is
not good as it does not forbid female circumcision. A law should be promulgated
to abolish once and for all any kind of female circumcision 174.
Egyptian juridical works and anthologies of
law pertaining to public health never mention this decree. One never finds any
judgements on it. On the other hand, the Egyptian courts have convicted a
barber for having practiced circumcision on a boy who consequently died.
Contrary to the physician, the judgement states, the barber is not protected by
law if the result of his action is death or disability. The judge refused to
consider laudable or charitable intentions or the absence of criminal intent.
In this case, the Court applied article 200 of the Penal Code which makes
provision for 3 to 7 years of forced labour or imprisonment in cases of
voluntary injury without intention to kill, but in fact causing death 175. In
another judgement, the Court of Cassation stated that a midwife has no right to
practice circumcision, the right to perform surgery being reserved to
physicians only, in pursuance of the first article of law 415/1954. The Court
added that any attack on physical integrity, except in cases of necessity
authorized by law, is punishable, unless the acts are performed by a physician.
The midwife had circumcised a boy and mistakenly amputated his glans, causing
permanent disability that the Court estimated at 25%. The midwife was sentenced
to 6 months forced labour, suspended on condition of good behaviour during 3
years 176.
IV. TEMPORARY AND
PREVENTIVE MEASURES
Everybody agrees that legal measures will
never be enough to stop female circumcision. A conscious awareness must be
raised among the victims themselves. First, one must try to understand the
reasons for those practices. In the meantime, in order to avoid the worst, shouldn't
they be permitted to be performed in hospitals, in a less severe form?
1. Provision of medical care
As we have noted above, the WHO, the
Inter-African Committee, the Declaration of the Swiss Academy of Medical
Sciences and the London Declaration all dismiss this possibility as ethically
wrong. They even ask for strict sanctions against members of the medical
profession who perform female circumcision.
This attitude may be open to criticism. A
radical legal prohibition will only encourage female circumcision to go
underground. It will then be performed by persons without proper knowledge of
the possible complications, thus endangering the woman's health. The Senegalese
representative raised the issue while the Convention on the Rights of the Child
was being drawn up. Thus the actual phrasing of article 24, paragraph 3177.
Dominique Vernier is of the opinion that the
medicalisation of circumcision as is practised among the urban intellectual
elite of some African countries and in some Italian hospitals, in spite of the
physicians' hostility, should be accepted. She suggests that symbolic excision
be substituted for de facto excision as it is done in Guinea, where the
blacksmith's wife performs a light cut sufficient to draw a few drops of blood.
This is a way to respect the ritual without mutilating the child 178.
Medical care implies the risk of legalising
and perpetuating female circumcision especially because of the economic
repercussions. During the U.N. Seminar in Ouagadougou, some mentioned that the
medical profession takes the place of the traditional matrons and excises in
hospitals in order to make a financial profit and, by reducing health risks,
they perpetuate the practice: a guarantee of making money. Their greed, having
no limit, leads them to ignore the horror behind each sexual mutilation. Well
aware of the trust and respect given to them by the masses, they abuse the
naive parents and reassure them that the custom is well grounded. According to
those at the Seminar, one must fight against such a tendency which is only
going to add a new legitimacy to excision 179.
2. Comprehension
A. Gaudio and R. Pelletier see in female
circumcision "an expression of male power" 180, "a demonic desire
to control female sexuality, an endless tyranny of the dominating male behind
the alibi of culture" 181.
Nawal El-Saadawi, a victim of excision,
explains why female circumcision still goes on in Arab society under the male
iron will:
The importance given to virginity and an
intact hymen in these societies is the reason why female circumcision still
remains a very widespread practice despite a growing tendency, especially in
urban Egypt, to do away with it as something outdated and harmful. Behind circumcision
lies the belief that, by removing parts of girls' external genitals organs,
sexual desire is minimized. This permits a female who has reached the dangerous
age of puberty and adolescence to protect her virginity, and therefore her
honour, with greater ease. Chastity was imposed on male attendants in the
female harem by castration which turned them into inoffensive eunuchs.
Similarly female circumcision is meant to preserve the chastity of young girls
by reducing their desire for sexual intercourse 182.
She adds that female circumcision is a means
of dominating women in a patriarchal society where a man can have more than one
wife. The society uses various means to sexually bind her to one man and to
control who is the father of her children 183.
For Doctor G‚rard Zwang, the motive behind
circumcision is "metaphysical guilt". It is the motivation "for
all the sexual mutilations which human beings have inflicted upon themselves
since they discovered the stone knife and the metal blade, a motivation which
renders any non-religious, non-metaphysical consideration null and void":
As a result of metaphysical culpabilization,
men present sacrifices to gods, divinities, spirits: any earthy pleasures,
carnal desires, organs destined to provide pleasure. In order to be among the
"chosen ones" in another life, be it extra-, or supra-, or
infra-terrestrial, which follows automatically (!) upon death. That is the
origin of fasts, Lent, Ramadan, prohibited foods; that is the origin of
ordinances restricting sexual life: chastity, abstinence, continency, reshaping
of genitalia (circumcision, excision, infibulation, subincision,
hemicastration, etc...) 184.
Economics can also explain why circumcision
is still going on, to take an example mentioned above, when it is performed in
hospitals. It is also evident among traditional circles where midwives are not
about to give up so lucrative a practice 185. In some areas, the profession of
exciser is inherited from mother to daughter and the economic survival of the
family depends upon it. If the practice were to be eradicated, it would remove
the family's only source of income. Accordingly, some have recommended
retraining women who practise excision; as matrons, they can give up practicing
excision and still earn a living 186. Economics plays a role in male
circumcision as well. In Canada, where medical insurers in some Provinces
refuse to reimburse the costs of circumcision, it appears to be becoming less
common 187.
Also, the dowry is higher if the girl is a
virgin at the time of her marriage. Virginity is a money-making asset. That is
why some nations are so keen on infibulation 188.
3. Education
Nawal El-Saadawi states that the girls with
whom she talked were not aware of the prejudice caused by their circumcision.
Some even thought it was good for health and hygiene, especially because, in
their language, the word taharah means purification.
Girls believed that the purpose of the
surgery was just that: purification. People would not speak ill of them, they
would behave and their husbands would not be disgusted. After healing had taken
place, they had the inner satisfaction of being purified. Nawal El-Saadawi got
the same type of response from her medical students who had never been taught,
be it by teachers or by textbooks, the sexual function of the clitoris. No
question was ever put in exams on the role of the clitoris. The clitoris was
considered unimportant 189.
According to the testimonies gathered by
Wedad Zenie-Ziegler from Egyptian women, peasants practice female circumcision
because "it has always been done": they do not know why 190.
"The idea that it could be a mutilation is foreign to them" 191.
Wedad Zenie-Ziegler adds that women will
"make efforts to perpetuate this ritual as long as they do not understand
the uselessness of the sacrifice and that it is part of an immense conspiracy
aimed at subjecting them to male domination" 192.
CHAPTER V. THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
CIRCUMCISION
The
Third International Symposium on Circumcision was held from May 22-25, 1994, at
the University of Maryland, College Park, Washington DC. I was invited to the
symposium to speak of the attitudes of Muslims regarding male and female
circumcision 193. The following
report on the symposium gives an idea about the problem of male circumcision in
the United States.
I. ORGANIZERS AND
PARTICIPANTS
The symposium was organized by NOCIRC 194,
and was attended by a hundred or so people belonging to the three great
monotheistic religions (Christians, Jews and Muslims), coming from the United
States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, England, France, Switzerland, Somalia and
Egypt.
About forty of the symposium attendees
delivered speeches, which were followed by open debates. We also viewed two
films, one on male circumcision in the United States, and the other on female
circumcision in Somalia.
Every aspect of circumcision was considered:
medical, psychological, economic, religious and legal. My own speech concerned
circumcision within Islamic law. It was preceded and followed by speeches on
circumcision within Christianity and Judaism.
An exposition of photographs and art work was
arranged in a room where one could also purchase or receive gratis numerous
materials and publications produced primarily by the conference attendees and
other groups that attended the symposium.
The symposium concluded on May 25th with a
banquet during which awards were presented to individuals who had contributed
to the fight against male and female circumcision. On May 26th there was a
demonstration in Washington DC against circumcision (see below).
As its title indicates, this symposium was
the third of its kind. Although female circumcision was discussed, this
symposium principally dealt with male circumcision, which demonstrates in itself
that this form of circumcision is a real problem, especially in the United
States. What is the nature of this problem?
Infant circumcision in the United States
began not for medical or religious reasons, but for social reasons. It began in
the 1870s as a Victorian attempt to prevent or cure masturbation, which at the
time was believed to cause bedwetting, alcoholism, insanity, curvature of the
spine and other physical and mental disorders. The practice spread from England
concurrently to other English-speaking countries (Canada, Australia and the
United States).
When the masturbation theory was dispelled
and declared false in 1948 by the British National Health Service, the rate of
circumcision was reduced to less than 0.5% in England. The rate of circumcision
in Canada and in Australia also was lowered, but remains still around 20%.
In the United States, with the development of
hospitalized births, male infant circumcision remains a common practice. The
American medical community has tried to find "medical" justifications
for the continuation of circumcision. Even today, the United States remains the
only country on earth where the majority of male infants are circumcised for
non-religious reasons. This rate is today 60% with differences from one region
to another. Approximately 3'300 babies each day are submitted to circumcision
in American hospitals. This represents more than 1'25 million children
circumcised each year. Several babies die as a consequence of the operation,
which is performed without anaesthesia, and which results in numerous medical
complications. Circumcision is considered today as one of the reasons for the
violence which rages in American society, where the crime rate is six times
larger than that in Europe: That which society does to its children, its
children do to society. In effect, circumcision injures the brain of the child.
It also impairs the normal functioning of the adult sexuality. On average one
forth of the skin of the baby's penis is amputated. This has forced many Americans
to seek restoration of their foreskin (see below). Many authorities estimate
that the violence done to the infant during circumcision plays a role in the
fatal conflicts in the Middle East between Muslims and Jews, two groups that
practice circumcision.
In the United States, the American Academy of
Pediatrics has adopted a neutral position towards male circumcision, leaving
the decision to parents. One cannot say, however, that they are properly
informed of the implication of their decision. Circumcision takes place in
hospitals in the first days of life. Doctors rarely give information on the
benefits or risks of the surgery. They even exert psychological pressure by
expressing disapproval when parents refuse to consent to the operation. The
operation has become a sort of routine, notably in the lower and middle
classes. It is performed in a barbarous (this word is not too strong) manner by
doctors with clear financial motivations, at the request of ignorant parents,
and in any case, it is forced upon infants who cannot express their wishes in
the matter. Certainly, in rare instances, circumcision can be useful in the
treatment of certain diseases like phimosis (but even in this case, there are
medical means of treatment without resorting to circumcision). But the real
practice of male circumcision in the United States, like everywhere else in the
world, denotes a trivialization responsible for a contemptuous regard for the
physical integrity of the child.
III. COMBATING MALE CIRCUMCISION
BY IDENTIFYING THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
During the symposium, the participants tried
to see how one could put an end to male circumcision. In order to do this, it
is necessary to consider the roles of those responsible for the practice of
circumcision.
1. The doctors
Doctors form an imposing body that is very
difficult to confront. The participants of the symposium expressed little
confidence in them. One participant indicated that it was pointless to try to convince
doctors, for like all lobbies, they are against society. Doctors profit by the
operation of circumcision and one can hardly expect them to willingly reduce
their income. Circumcision and the commerce of the foreskin constitutes a
lucrative industry in the United States, amounting to several hundred million
dollars a year. Despite this, some doctors have been converted and have become
opponents of circumcision, especially those at the end of their careers who
have less to loose. Some came to bring their testimony and to argue against
circumcision. One of these gave to NOCIRC the Circumstraint tray 195 on which
he used to perform circumcisions and delivered an address entitled, "Leave
it alone!".
2. The nurses
Nurses also participate in circumcision. These nurses can be easily mobilized against circumcision by reason of the atrocious suffering they have witnessed during the circumcision of babies. Circumcision is performed without anaesthesia. We viewed a film of the operation and heard repeatedly the screams of the infant being operated upon. It was truly unbearable. It is not an accident that circumcision