I read with interest Cecil’s explanation of female circumcision. I was disheartened to read how it was, once again, linked to Muslims, or as was stated in the article, to African and Middle Eastern countries. As a Muslim woman who grew up in the Middle East, I had NEVER HEARD of female circumcision until I went to the University and read about it. From what I was able to discover, female circumcision occurs in Africa (Egypt being in Africa) and does not occur in any other part of the Middle East. There are approximately 22 Middle Eastern countries, and female circumsion (correct me if I am wrong) occurs in those countries located on the African continent. Thus should we believe that there is an African connection, or an Islamic connection? Why do we ignore the fact that this does not happen in countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia (by far a totally Islamic country), or the many other Middle Eastern countries.
It just doesnt make sense, and I am tired of it being associated with my country or my religion. Not to make light of the practice, but if some Christians in the USA decided to dye their hair prple because they believed it would make them somehow closer to God, and if they found some part of scripture to back their beliefs, would it be then fair to call it a Christian pratice, practiced in the West?
If this page - http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/world.html - is correct, then it is also a tradition still found on the Southern part of the Arabian penninsula. So technically “Africa and the Middle East” isn’t an inaccurate describtor. Though “Africa and Asia” would be more appropriate since FGM is found on Java and the Malay penninsula as well. And since at least some of the cultures that do practice FGM seem to sometimes make an appeal to Islamic law ( however misguided ) to justify the practice, then I can understand where the conflation of the two came about.
That said, I agree with you in principal that tarring whole regions and religions with a broad brush is an unacceptable practice. More qualified statements would go a long way to correcting the spread of ignorant notions. Can’t really speak specifically to the Cecil column, because I don’t really recall what exactly he said. Could someone provide a link?
I agree with you. I am told that female circumcision does occur, and at times in countries that are Muslim, but to equate the two is horrific. Since the majority of Muslims, and Muslim countries do NOT practice it, isnt it just racist to lump it all together? “those people” without bothering to research it further.
Hmmm…Well I don’t see anything that is seriously inaccurate in the linked column. With one possible exception, which I’ll get to in a moment.
He makes only two references to Islam per se. One is “…Many Muslims believe this practice was recommended by Muhammed.” I think this is a factual statement. My understanding is that many ( but hardly all or even most ) Muslims do believe this. That they’re incorrect ( from everything I’ve read and been told ) doesn’t change that fact.
The other reference is the one to the statement issued by Islamic scholars in Egypt, disavowing a Koranic link to FGM. I see nothing uncomplementary about this.
Now he does use that overly broad generalization of “Africa and the Middle East”, which I agree is just a little sloppy. But frankly most people think of “Africa” as referring to sub-Saharan Africa and the “Middle East” as including Egypt ( it was so included in my two-semester course on Islamic history ). So I’ll cut him a little slack given the space constraints involved in writing a newspaper column.
Slightly sloppier that that though, and the only place I think he may have muffed it a bit, is his comment on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. It seems to assume that Islamic fundamentalists in general are pro-FGM, which I really doubt is the case. If he had said “…the rise of Islamic fundamentalisn in such countries as Egypt…” he would’ve been more on track. Qualifiers are our friends .
But overall I think it was a solid column and I wouldn’t label it as racist in any way ( not saying that you are, necessarily ). It basically boils down to the fact that you can’t always encompass all the nuances of a complex subject in one short column.
I do see your point and agree that someone who wasn’t reading carefully might come away with the mistaken impression that this was a universal practice in the Muslim world. But I think that would be the fault of the reader in this case, not the writer.
Youre right, the column itself does not make the delibarate connection that FGM is an Islamic practice, however, there are quite a few connections made that I feel implies this statement. To say that it is up to the reader to separate the two concepts, is unfair. I feel there are enough Muslims, and Muslim countries, that DO NOT practic or support FGM to allow people NOT to make the connection between FGM and Islam. In my original commentary, I may have used my past experiences and conversations regarding this subject, and thus may have made implications that were certainly not part of Cecil’s column.
I just noticed on the website you linked me to re FGM that in Egypt both the Muslim and Copt populations practice FGM. Another point never made which indicates, I belive, that this is not a religious issue, as it is often described, but a cultural one.
Hi, Jenin. You raise a valid point in separating the custom of FGM as a cultural influence not specifically Muslim. I think that Cecil’s column doesn’t really say anything wrong, but perhaps it is a bit confusing and doesn’t address that particular issue. It is, however, the case that many Muslims do practice the custom, and do believe it to be dictated by their religion. That does not mean by any means that all Muslims practice the custom or that is is a “Muslim practice”.
Your reference to christian analogs might be served by relating instances that do occur, such as “speaking in tongues”, or handling rattlesnakes, or baptism by full immersion in water, or relying on faith healing and eschewing medical care, or praying to Mary and saints. These practices are tenets of sects of christianity that are not applicable to all branches and denominations. However, they are tenets of the religious beliefs of those groups. Though I suppose for your point it is noteworthy that FGM is not constrained purely to Muslim groups, and thus is not a direct analog.
Jenin: I do indeed understand where you are coming from and I would agree that a small disclaimer about the cultural, rather than religious roots of FGM would have been nice in Cecil’s piece. But I do grant him a little wiggle room on it since I understand space constraints and I don’t think his article was intentionally slanted or inaccurate.
But your point about Copts in Egypt and Irishman’s quotes from Egyptian fatwas does bring up an interesting point. I think there is no doubt that FGM is a phenomena rooted in cultural practice, rather than religious law. But it is very common for people “enforcing” controversial cultural mores to make an appeal to religion as justification for their actions. So 19th century white Europeans ( and nutcase white supremacists today ) justified slavery and the politics of racism by appealing to dubious interpretations of a few obscure passages of the bible. Similarly the Taliban in Afghanistan enforce the wearing of beards by men on the flimsy pretext “that Muhammed wore one” ( this may actually be derived from Wahabi teachings, I don’t really know if it is specifically culturally Afghan in origin or not ).
So lines naturally begin to blur. If you have tens of millions of African, South Arabian, and Malaysian/Javanese Muslims claiming that FGM is mandated by God ( and of course not all do - Some just say that Islam “doesn’t forbid it” ), it becomes difficult for the average person to sort out what is religiously mandated and what isn’t.
Which, I suppose, makes it all the more important to emphasize the cultural origins of this problem .
Though there is the sticky question of whether the Egyptian Shari’a (Shafi’i school? ) specifically mandates FGM. If it does ( and I have no idea ), then it raises the question of whether or not FGM is in FACT religiously mandated and would said mandate make Egyptians “bad” Muslims for following a teaching not specifically addressed by the Koran or most ( if not all ) hadith. Brings up the whole confusing question of whether specific “sects” are “good” Muslims ( or Christians, or Jews, or whatever ) or not.
Thank you for all your comments… I just wanted to reiterate that I do not think Cecil’s column was accusatory, and it may have to do with length constraints that it was not made clear that Muslims, by definition, practice FGM. My commentary, I must admit, comes from years of hearing that the two (Islam and FGM) were inseperable, either through TV shows, articles, or conversations I have had here in the USA. As a non-pracicing female Muslim, (thus I can hardly pretend to know the Shari’a etc.), I have had to constantly explain that this is not a normal practice in ANY of the countries I have lived in. Thus, when I read Cecil’s column, and due to the fact that Cecil is “fighting ignorance”, I guess I just hoped for a more clear distinction. I just think it has always been easy to generalize and stereotype Muslims as fanatics.
Thank you for your links, I still find it interesting that the Copts in Egypt practice FGM. I had never known that prior to this discussion.
I found this which may explain why Muslims (many of whom are African too) practise FGM:
My only comment is this:
FGM is a hideous practice and if the religious leaders of Islam wanted to disassociate their religion from female circumcision, they only have to speak out and say so.
As such, no Islamic leader (to my knowledge) has ever condemned the practice.
I readily admit that most Islamic societies do not practice it, but some do.
Here is the quote
>>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 Tatiyyah). 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 practising 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.<<
). So I’ll cut him a little slack given the space constraints involved in writing a newspaper column.
.