|
<Home> <Health-an Islamic Perspective> <Islamic Ruling on Male and Female Circumcision> <Female Circumcision Neither a Sunna, nor a Sign of Respect>
Islamic
Ruling on Female
Circumcision Ever since the international CNN television network screened a filmed report depicting a circumcision being performed on an innocent Egyptian young girl, the subject of circumcision, in particular, female circumcision, has commanded considerable public interest, not just in Egypt, but in many other places, particularly within the Arab and Islamic world. Many People have overstated the case, claiming female circumcision to be asulma, and other writers have gone too far, maintaining that Islamic jurisprudence makes "circumcision obligatory for both male and female". Male circumcision is not a controversial subject, and there is no need to state how Islam recrards it. Islamic legal rulings are deduced from the original, universally agreed sources. These are the Quran; the authentic sulmaof the Prophet [PBUH] consensus, subject to the conditions set for it in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence; and analogy, when it meets the essential conditions. The concusions of jurisprudence scholars are a human endeavour carried out by specialists in Islamic law to point out for Muslims, and even non-Muslims, the rulings of Islam on everything they are interested in. Any conclusion reached by these scholars, however, should not be regarded as law, nor can it be cited as a creed to be followed. It can only be cited as an interpretation of the original texts and an application ofwhat they say to actual cases. Such a conclusion is a vehicle for a better understanding of the texts and of how they function, but it is not infallible, and it is as likely to err as to be correct. A qualified interpreter of Islamic jurisprudence is doubly rewarded when he makes a correct interpretation and receives a single reward when he errs. Therefore,
if we wish to find out the ruling of Islamic law on the question of female
circumcision, we should seek it in the Quran, then in the sunna, then
in the consensus of scholars, and finally by analogy. We may find help
in the interpretations of scholars, reassuring us that we have understood
the text correctly, and confirming our conclusion. However, in the light
of the knowledge now available to us and the progress made in medical
science in particular, we may find nothing of benefit in those interpretations.
When this is the case, we disregard them and pay no attention to what
is set down in the books of scholars. As for the sunna, it is the source to which the presumed legitimacy of female circumcision is ascribed, and this is because of certain quotations attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) in some anthologies of hadith. In fact, there is no authentic evidence in the cited statements which allows for sanctioning this act, which has such serious matter, with its serious implications for human life as a whole. Scholars do not admit the evidence of hadith with questionable authority. Evidence can be taken only from those that have a strong chain of transmission. The hadith most often quoted of those which mention female circumcision is one that concerns a woman called Umm Attia, known to have practised female circumcision in Medina. It is claimed that the Prophet (pbuh) told her: "Umm Attia, restrict yourself to a sniff and do not overstrain; (this way ,) it is more pleasant in appearance and more satisfactory to the husband". Thishadith is quoted, with similar phraseology, by Al-Hakim, AI-Baihaqi, and Abu Dawood. All of them, however, relate it with weak chains of transmission, ashadith scholar Zein al- Din al-Iraqi points out in his commentary on Al-Ghazali'sIhya ulum al-din (I: 148). Abu Dawood, whose version differs in phraseology from the above-quoted one, says in commenting on this hadith: "It is reported in its general sense on the authority of Ubaidellah ibn Amr ibn Abd al-Malik.lts chain of transmitters is not strong. Besides, it is reported not as a direct quote attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) ...Thishadith is poorin authenticity" (AbuDawood's sunan, XIII, 125-26). Some contemporary scholars have collected the various versions ofthishadith, all of which are lacking in authenticity and cannot be used as evidence. My colleague Muhammad al-Sabbagh, a renowned scholar, says in his treatise on female circumcision, '"Consider, then, may God protect you, how these two eminent scholars, Abu Dawood and Al-Iraqi, as well as the others mentioned in my documentation of this hadith, judge it as a hadith markedly lacking in authenticity. It is better to pay no attention to later scholars who sought to classify it as authentic". Thus, Umm Attia's hadith, in all its 'versions, is of no value and cannot serve as evidence. Even if, for the sake of argument, we regard it as authentic, the instruction it gives is not an order to subject girls to circumcision. It is rather an explanation of how to perform it if it is to be performed. In this case, it should be restricted to a "sniff', which scholars compare to the sniffing of perfume, meaning to cut off only a tiny part of the external side of the spot where circumcision is usually performed, which is the fold of skin known as the prepuce. It is, as the Imam Al-Mawardi says, ". ..cutting off a part of this upper skin without removing the whole or as the Imam Al-NawawI descrIbes It, "cutting off its lowest part". It is then a delicate medical question calling for a surgeon who can detemine "the lowest part" of "this upper skin". Even if it is considered legitimate, female circumcision should not be performed by general practitioners, and certainly not by people who are not qualified as surgeons, such as midwives, barbers, etc. That is unfortunately what takes place in our country and other places where girls are subjected to this appalling operation. Another
hadith which is as well-known as that involving Umm Attia is a quotation
attributed to heProphet (pbuh) which says: "Circumcision is a sunna
for men and a sign of resp ct for women". In his comments on Ihya
ulum al-din, hadith scholar Al-Iraqi finds it also lacking in authenticity.
For this and other reasons, the eminent scholar Sheikh Sayyed Sabeq says
inFiqh al-sunna: "The hadith recommending female circumcision are
poor in authenticity. None of them is found to be authentic" (1,33). In
his book Talkhis al-ltabir ii takhrij ahadith al-raiie al-kabiri, hadith
scholar Ibn Hajar describes this hadith as poor in authenticity, and quotes
Imam Al-Baihaqi 's point ofvjew that it is "poor, with a broken chain
of transmission". In Al-tamhid lima fil-muwatta ' min al-ma
'ani wal-assanid, lbn Abd al-Barr says, "It is based on tne authority
of a transmitter whose report cannot be admitted as evidence" Shams
al-Haq al-Azhim Abadi's Awn al-ma 'bood ii sharh sunan abu dawobd, XIV,
124). Hadith
scholar Abu Umar ibn Abd al-Barr says in his above-mentioned book: Therefore this text cannot be used as evidence because of its weakness, being based on a transmitter whose report is unacceptable. How then can a ruling be based on iit to the effect that a certain practice is a sunna or a sign ofrespect, which at worst is a recommended thing, and recommendation is a ruling that cannot be confirmed without sound evidence. Nor is it an acceptable reply that this hadith gains evidence and support from the above-mentioned h dith of Umm Attia, for all the evidence cited by those who claim it to be authentic has serious defects negating such authenticity and rendering it inadmissible. Even if the hadith is authentic, which it is not, it does not imply that male and female circumcision have a similar ruling. It rather makes it explicit that female circumcision is not a .'ilmlla, but below it in degree. It is as if Islam, coming at a time when Arabs practised female circumcision, aimed at refining this habit by describing an extremely delicate and subtle method, using the words "restrict yourself to a sniff and do not overstrain" in the first hadith which is lacking in authenticity, and also aimed at making it clear that it is not a practice endorsed by religion, but rather a folk custom, and this is done by stating that circumcision is "a sulllla for men. .." in the second hadith which is also lacking in authenticity. The word.'ilmnais used in the sense of"habit," and notin the sense it has in religion. Neither of the two hadith, even if for the sake of argument they are supposed to be sound, admits an acceptable interpretation other than the above. Had the Prophet (pbuh) intended an cqual ruling for men and women, he would have said: "Circumcision is a sumla for men and women," or he might have said, "Circumcision is a sunna," and stopped at that. That would have made the ruling general, as long as it does not have anything which restricts its application to some, and not to all, people. Since the utterance, were it authentic, distinguishes between men and women, the ruling must be different, and its being a sunna, in the general sense of the word, applies to men alone. That is how Ibn Abd al- Barr al-Qurtubi interprets it when he criticizes those who claim female circumcision is a sunna on the basis of that unauthentic hadith. He points out that the consensus is that circumcision is for men. The same interpretation is implied in the words oflbn al-Munther: "There is no authority to rely on in the question of circumcision, nor a sunnato be followed." (quoted by Shams al-Haq al-Azim Abadi in his annotation of Abu Dawood's sunan, XIV, 126). Imam al-Shawkani says: "In addition to the fact that the hadith is not valid as reference, it does not give any evidence to prove the case in question" (Nail al-awtar, I, 139). In some of the writings on the subject recently published in Egypt, there is a mention of a lady called Umm Habiba and a hadith in the form of a conversation between her and the Prophet (pbuh) on this point is cited. There is no such hadith in aQy of the anthologies of traditions, and no mention of a woman with that name who practised female circumcision. Therefore, the argument is not valid; it is utterly unfounded. Another evidence people cite is a hadith attributed to Abdullah ibn Umar which addresses the women of al-ansar (the original inhabitants of Medina who supported the Prophet (pbuh) ) endorsing female circumcision. The hadith is described as unauthentic in the very source from which they quote it (Al- Shawkani,Nail al-awtar, I, 139), which says, " Abu Naim'schain of transmission (Abu Naim being one of the two person who quote it) includes Mandal ibn Ali, who is classified as a poor authorlly, while Ibn Adi's chain of transmission includes Khaled ibn All1l" al-Qurashi, who is even a poorer authority than Mandal. Thus, this is another hadith that cannot be cited as evidence by anybody. Authentic hadith include one in which Aisha directly quotes the Prophet (pbuh) (and with a version where she is the one quoted) as saying something, cited in more than one version with slightly different phraseology, to the effect that, "If the two circumcision organs meet, ghusl or grand ablution, becomes obligatory". This hadith is cited by Malik in Al-muwatta " Muslim in his anthology of authentic hadith, Al- Tilmithi and Ibn Majah in their anthologies, and other editors of collections of the hadith. The relevant point here is the phrase "the two circumcision organs" used by the Prophet (pbuh) which is an explicit reference to the male and female organs that are usually circumcised and which is taken by some people as evidence that clitoridotomy is legitimate. This authentic hadith is by no means evidence of legitimacy, the Arabic word used for "the two circumcision organs" is in the dual case and it follows the habit of calling two objects or two persons after the more familiar or after either of them, giving it prominence. There are many examples of this in idiomatic Arabic usage, such as "the two Umars", referring to Abu Bakr and Umar; "the two moons", referring to the sun and moon; "the shining two", making the same reference although the moon does not shine of itself and only reflects the light of the sun; "the two 'ishas", refening to maghreb and 'isha, and "the two zhuhrs", referring tozhuhrand 'asr. Arabs usually choose the more prominent of the two or the easier in giving a dual form, and that is why they say for parents, "the two fathers", although they are a father and a mother. Sometimes they choose the easier to pronounce as in their saying, "the two Umars " or the greater in status, such as in God's saying, "Nor are the two seas alike, the one being potable and pleasant to drink, and the other salty and briny". The first of these "two seas" is a river and the second, an actual sea. Sometimes the word with the female gender is chosen to make the dual form, such as in the expression "the two Marwas", referring to the two hills of As-Safa and AI-Marwa in Mecca. This usage in the Arabic language is familiar to Arabic linguists. (One famous reference book available to students and dealing with this point is Abbas Hassan's An-nah\1' al-wafi, I, 118-19). Thus it is clear that in true sunna there is no evidence that female circumcision is endorsed, that all thehadith on female circumcision used as evidence are poor in authenlicity and cannot serve as the basis for a religious l-uling, and that the practice is nothing other than a custom which Islam left for time and for progress in medicine to refine or abolish. We should remind those who advocate female circumcision, believing it to be a religious practice, that the thing we are discussing is not a theoretical concept which can serve as a suitable subject of controversy. It is rather a custom which is very common. Published Egyptian statistics reveal that 95% of all Egyptian females are subjected to circumcision (Facts about female circumcision, The Egyptian Society for Protection against Practices Harmful to Women and Children, 1993, p.11 ). The practice takes one of three forms, none of which conforms to the procedure advocated by those who sanction female circumcision. All three fonns deviate from that procedure. In all its forms practised in Egypt, female circumcision falls under the 'overstraining' mentioned in thehadith that lacks authenticity. This means that this hadith provides them with no support because the practice does not conform to the advice mentioned in this hadith; it indeed contradicts it. Female circumcision as practised in Egypt, in its three forms, is an assault on the human body which falls under the category of criminal behaviour as defined in the criminal code (Salah Awais, Deputy Chief Justice at the Court of Cassation, F emale circLtmcision in light of the principle.') of criminal and civil responsibility in Egyptian law). Physicians and nonphysicians equally shoulder the criminal and civil responsibility for this atrocity. The female genitals in their normal fonn and as created by God are not a disease, nor a cause of disease. Nor do they cause any sort of pain which requires surgical intervention. Thus any surgical tampering with this delicate, natural system, in any of the fonns of female circumcision, is not regarded by the law as falling under any of the valid reasons for surgery , which are medical treatment, detection of a disease, relief from a current pain, or prcvention of an expected one. Therefore, the surgical procedure in question is not allowed and calls for punishment (Ibid., p.9). God's Messenger (pbuh) forbade any meddling with God's creation, and authentic hadith quote him as cursing females who undertake such meddling. The Quran classifies the amputation of organs, even in animals, as a sin. Such amputation is what Satan warned to use as a means to lead human beings astray in handling their cattle, and it is mentioned together with tampering with God's creation. God says about Satan: God has cursed Satan and he had said, Of your servants I shall take my due share and lead them astray. I will fill them with vain desires and ordelothem to slit the ear.\" C!fcattleo I shall order them to tamper with God's creation. Whoever choo.'ie.\" Satan, rather tl1an God, a:,° hi.'i protector, suffers an irredeemable loss (4:117-19). As practised in Egypt and in other parts of the Is]amic world, fema]e circumcision invo]ves tampering with God's creation and a remova] of invio]ab]e human organs. If doing this to anima]s is an act of Satan' s, which he does in order to lead people astray, how can it be regarded when done to human beings? It is a well known fact that the ]ocation where fema]e circumcision is performed is one of the high]y sensitive spots in arousing sexual desire. The way it is touched determines whether or not a woman gets the satisfaction in intercourse which her husband is expected to give her. This satisfaction in turn determines whether she feels emotional fulfillment, and the two feelings of physica] and emotiona] satisfaction increase or decrease in proportion to each other. Any surgical meddling with this part of the body certainly reduces both feelings. It is a flagrant assault on the woman's ]egitimate right to enjoy intimacy with her husband and to have the psycho]ogical peace which results from enjoying that right of hers. God has given the organs of every human being a specia] image that is never repeated in all its detai]s in any other person. He knows best the things and the creatures He has created. There is no frivolity or oversight in His making anyone of His creatures; and certainly there is nothing that needs to be coaected by a woman who practices infibu]ation, as argued by the advocates of female circumcision. All organs of the human body are made to carry out their functions in the fullest and best possible m;:lnner. To deny a person the fruits of some of these functions is certainly an assault on that person. Advocates of female circumcision who wish for it to continue ignore that fact and subject women to a most severe injury. It is an unlawful injury, the harm resulting from it cannot be cured, and the psychological pain it causes cannot be compensated by anybody. Since female circumcision is not something required and no evidence from religious sources proves that it is either an obligation or a sunna, what remains is that it is an absolute damage that has no benefit. It is not, as its advocates say, "a proper refinement of sexual desire, particularly in adolescence". They go on to say, "This is something that we can witness in, and be warned against by, the mixing, crowding, and even bodily contact ofmen and women in the areas and places where contact takes place these days, as everyone surely knows. Unless girls are circumcised. ..they will be exposed to various erotic excitements which, together with other elements with which this age is abundant, will lead them to deviation and vice". I maintain that things are not as these people claim them to be, because erotic excitement of the point which is subjected to female circumcision results only from direct contact under special circumstances, which is not something that occurs in the cases of mixing, gathering, and closeness they mention, the most obvious of which ispublic transport. In these cases, contact between various parts of the male and female bodies, contrary to religious inssturction, occurs. Could the answer for susch occurrences be to remove these parts from the bodies of all men and women? It is well known that every chaste and virtuous person, male or female, greatly suffers when something of that sort occurs to him or her, and usually that III happens accidentally and unintentionally. When an upright'and God-fearing "ii! person finds himself in such a situation, he or she suffers great embarrassment. In such a situation no sexual desire is going to be aroused to begin with, the brain being preoccupied with more urgent concerns. Except in the cases of abnormal and sick people, who do not count when general rulings are made, erotic excitement happens only in atmospheres of full relaxation, peace of mind, and willingness. Chastity and modesty are equally called for in men and women. They are the means of protection against the unpleasant consequences of close contact between the two sexes. Good upbringing, which instills virtuous conduct, is the real shield that keeps such contact from leading to consequences contrary to religious instruction and moral standards. As for the female circumcision which some people advocate, it is useless and, as already pointed out, an absolute Injury. It is the duty of the government, both in Egypt and in other Islamic countries where this reprehensible custom prevails, to pass a law prohibiting it, particularly as it is practised at present. The inflexibility of some people in following the reviews of their forefathers should not be allowed as an obstacle against such a law. Scholars rule that the removal of the labia majora, which are the two outer folds of skin of the vulva surrounding the entrance for intercourse, calls for the payment of the full amount of blood money, and blood money is a punishment f for the person who pays it and a compensation for the one who receives it. In explaining this ruling they point out that sexual satisfaction is linked with the labia, and losing or reducing the ability to have this satisfaction calls for such : punishment and compensation. To take measures of prevention against its " occurrence is certainly legitimate; it is much better than to wait for it to happen and then try and explain or justify it. (See Ibn Hazm, Al-muhalla, X, 458. Ibn Hazm quotes the views of scholars on the subject then makes clear his stand in opposition to them, calling for retaliation against intentional practice and waiving blood money in the case of mistakes. Also see Ibn Qudama,Al-mughni, XI, 546 and XII, 158, where two views are quoted, one calling for retaliation when the labia majora are removed and the other ruling that blood money is sufficient for technical considerations which the retaliation procedure invol ves. ) Thus it is clear that in Islamic ruling, clitoridotomy is neither an obligation nor a sunna, with no evidence supporting either. Nor is it a sign of respect because all the hadith endorsing it are poor in authenticity. It is rather a custom, and as such it is not common in all Islamic countries; it is restricted to some. Besides, it is a custom that causes an absolute injury, the infliction of which on any person cannot be accepted without legitimate justification. It is an injury which, particularly in its psychological aspect, cannot be compensated for. If its practice and the injustice it involves, as it is practised in all its forms that are common in our country, causes a woman to lose her ability to enjoy sexual satisfaction, scholars rule that retribution or blood money is due. Let the fear of God enter the hearts of those who sanction what cannot be sanctioned and attribute to Islam something that it does not call for. Let them remember what the Prophet (pbuh) urged upon his followers in regards to women, when he said: "Take good care of women". Let them picture themselves in the place of these poor women who, through circumcision, are deprived of a satisfaction which, if these men were the ones to be deprived of, they would find no compensation for in any other way. |
|||||||||||||||||||||