ARTICLES
- Home
- Articles
Not a Clear-Cut Issue: Female Circumcision as a Contested Tradition
While proponents of sunat perempuan may argue that the act is harmless (unlike Type 1, 2 and 3 of FGM), it is hard to argue for any medical benefit from the practice – unlike that of male circumcision. Some Muslims, however, have resorted to the argument that the practice is needed to subdue female sexuality. This claim rests upon two claims: that female sexuality is higher than men and that subduing it is necessary to promote female purity and chastity. These two claims rest upon the overarching assumptions that women are the guardians of morality and female sexuality can be a source of moral destruction. Hence, the need to subject women to sunat or circumcision.
In recent years, female genital cutting, or FGC, has become a contentious issue within the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore. Although debates on FGC are not new, it burst onto public discourse in Singapore after a 2021 parliamentary speech by then-Member of Parliament from the Workers’ Party (WP), Raeesah Khan. In her speech on the Gender Equality Motion put forth by her party, she highlighted the harm that may occur as a result of FGC and “strongly urge the Ministry of Health to conduct a thorough review of female genital cutting procedures done in private clinics”.
Globally, FGM (female genital mutilation) – the umbrella term preferred by international agencies, which incorporates FGC – gained greater attention after a resolution passed by the World Health Assembly in 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) is now working towards a complete ban of the practice worldwide. The United Nations (UN) has also set the year 2030 as a target for the global community to end FGM under its Sustainable Development Goals agenda. For countries to continue practicing FGM, therefore, is seen as a violation of international human rights norm.
The practice in Singapore
In Singapore, FGM is practiced by a segment within the Muslim community who hold on to an age-old tradition endorsed by the dominant Shafi’i school of law within Islam. It has been argued that the FGM practiced in Singapore is not “mutilation”. The thought of mutilation evokes the extreme practices of female circumcision that involves partial or total removal of parts of the genitals, such as the clitoral glans, prepuce/clitoral hood, labia minora and/or labia majora. These procedures are widely acknowledged as harmful and dangerous.
Understandably, Singaporean Muslims who continue to practice FGM are quick to dissociate the local practice – known as sunat perempuan (female circumcision; FGC or female genital cutting) – from FGM. However, this is simply a nomenclature. According to the WHO, FGM exists in 4 types and sunat perempuan, which typically involves making a symbolic nicking of the genital area to draw blood, falls under Type 4.
While proponents of sunat perempuan may argue that the act is harmless (unlike Type 1, 2 and 3 of FGM), it is hard to argue for any medical benefit from the practice – unlike that of male circumcision. Some Muslims, however, have resorted to the argument that the practice is needed to subdue female sexuality. This claim rests upon two claims: that female sexuality is higher than men and that subduing it is necessary to promote female purity and chastity. These two claims rest upon the overarching assumptions that women are the guardians of morality and female sexuality can be a source of moral destruction. Hence, the need to subject women to sunat or circumcision.
None of these claims and assumptions are defensible by any authoritative scientific and medical standard. They are products of patriarchal thinking that have been passed on from generation to generation in the form of a cultural practice. But while cultures may evolve and change, its endurance depends on additional factors such as religious endorsement. In the case of sunat perempuan, proponents argued that this is a religious obligation and forms part of the identity of a Muslim woman. It is not surprising therefore, to find great resistance to calls for the banning of the practice.
Notably, medical professionals who swore by the Hippocratic Oath of “do no harm” often find it difficult to take a public stand on FGM. If they are Muslims, they are conflicted about their professional ethics and what they learnt about the practice being a religious requirement in Islam. If they are non-Muslims, they are careful not to be seen interfering in a religious matter of which they have no ground to speak on, or for fear of offending the Muslims.
The religious dimension
That is why the issue of FGM is complicated and continues to be a controversial topic when raised in public discourse. The religious dimension of the issue has led to a situation in which engaging on the issue may lead to assertions that Muslim values, identity and right to practice religion are under assault. This is compounded by the minority status of Muslims in Singapore and the government is careful not to be seen as infringing on the religious freedom of Muslims who want to practice sunat perempuan as a religious duty.
Observably, we noticed that it is male voices who are generally vocal in resisting any call to ban or even to question the practice. This can be understood within the larger issue of the reassertion of masculinity in a situation where gender equality is becoming a norm. Men may feel that the only way to resist their sense of emasculation is by reclaiming their voice to “protect their women” and “defend the religion”. Unfortunately, they come in the form that is the very opposite: of entrenching a practice that can be harmful, has no medical benefit and represents a patriarchal thinking that runs contrary to the best ethical formulation within Islam.
Noticeably, there is one aspect that has often been ignored: religious voices who are calling for the abandonment of sunat perempuan. This is significant to dispel the notion that the practice is in line with “being Islamic” and hence a foregone conclusion. In reality, there has been no consensus among the ulama as evidenced by the fact that only the Shafi’i school of thought considers the practice obligatory. But even then, Shafi’i scholars continue to debate the matter. While most agree that it should continue to be practiced, there has been credible dissenting views.
No Consensus
With the rise of modern scientific knowledge and women’s rights movements, the issue of female circumcision began to be questioned by the turn of the 20th century. In Southeast Asia, it is worth noting that a compromise fatwa was made by the Indonesian Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) in its first congress in Surabaya in 1928 to declare the practice as “permitted” instead of obligatory or compulsory. This came on the back of debates within traditionalist circles surrounding the issue.
However, it will take a few more decades for the ulama to be vocal about their dissenting position on the need to uphold what a prominent Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Sabiq, called sunnah qadimah (ancient practice) in his encyclopedic Fiqh as-Sunnah. Nonetheless, the voices of contemporary ulama disagreeing with the practice of FGM/FGC must not be seen as a “modern” stand. There has been no consensus on this issue throughout Muslim legal history. For example, the 14th century scholar, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani mentioned in his Fath al-Bari, a commentary on hadith compendium of Sahih al-Bukhari, that the majority of ulama of other schools of jurisprudence except Shafi’i, rejects the compulsory ruling on female circumcision. Even within the Shafi’i school, there were differences of opinion on the conditions that make it obligatory. Some Shafi’i scholars even disagreed with the opinion of Imam al-Shafi’i, the founder of the Shafi’i school of law.
In the modern era, the former Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut adopts the opinion (in his collection of religious rulings, Al-Fatawa) that the Prophetic sayings on female circumcision were doubtful in terms of their authenticity and therefore the ulama’s ruling on its obligation is weak. More recently, the premier Egyptian religious law-making institution, Dar al-Ifta, issued a fatwa in 2007 declaring FGM a cultural practice with no links to Islamic teachings. It further highlighted that the Prophet was not known to have circumcised his daughters and in accordance with the higher objectives of Islamic law and public interest, the practice ought to be prohibited. As the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shaykh Ali Gomaa explained:
“Islam is, without doubt, a religion that adapts and develops to the changing conditions of the world, and the state of scientific knowledge. The enduring commitment to human rights and dignity demand action on our part towards the eradication of FGM.”
In Indonesia, among the voices of traditionalist scholars challenging the practice of FGM is Kiyai Dr Husein Muhammad. Using classical Islamic sources and the views of several notable classical and modern ulama, he argued – in two chapters of his books, Fiqh Perempuan (2001) and Ijtihad Kyai Husein (2011) – that the various hadith used to argue for the obligation of doing female circumcision are weak. Therefore, its obligation as found in classical rulings must be considered as ijtihad (reasoning) by past scholars and not binding on present-day Muslims, who must re-evaluate this practice in light of modern scientific and medical knowledge and the changing notion of women’s rights and dignity.
Identity politics
Given the lack of religious consensus, the continued practice of female circumcision is not a matter of communal religious rights. Therefore, it should not be discussed primarily through the religious lens or left to the voices of the guardians of religion. The debate has much to do with the rise in identity politics within religious societies. In the example of Egyptian society, Dr Mariz Tadros of the University of Sussex made a pertinent observation:
“FGM, although practiced for thousands of years, has been on the decline in the past decade thanks to a socially sensitive and nationwide campaign to show that FGM is neither religiously prescribed, nor linked to a woman’s moral behaviour. Thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, the progress made in eliciting positive social change on curbing the practice now risks being reversed.”
Hence, one must not discount the circulation and mainstreaming of ideas by modern conservative movements that have led to the resistance against ending FGM. These movements saw FGM through the lens of “Islamic identity and morality” and typically, women’s bodies became the site of struggle against what they saw as the liberal and corrupting ideas of the West.
As the issue is closely bound by identity politics, it is necessary to strengthen the scientific and medical aspects that strongly point to the harm and uselessness of FGM. The narrative of FGM as an “Islamic practice” must be questioned by appealing to the higher objectives of Islam, such as the shari’a principle of “no harm” and “public interest”, which correspond to the global standard of medical ethics and scientific knowledge.
Ultimately, any decision made on the issue of FGM must go beyond mere social attitudes. While acknowledging the importance of taking into consideration social attitudes in wider society, they cannot be the sole basis for public policy decisions. Addressing social attitudes, however, is necessary. This could be done by having public conversations that raise the standard of discourse on the issue. Such conversations should not begin by boxing it as a “religious issue”, hence excluding voices – such as medical experts who are non-Muslims – from exchanges that can better inform the questioning public. This will also ensure that there can be no monopoly of opinion, which has the effect of constricting the imagination of the public on the matter.
Finally, FGM/FGC should be positioned as a matter of public health and not communal rights. While we may respect cultural practices and traditions of a community, they must not be seen to be in violation of higher ethical principles and the rights of a citizen as accorded by the law of the land or universal humanitarian standards. This is not a novelty in approach. One can point to the example of child marriage. In Singapore, no Muslim below the age of 16 can get married even though traditional Islamic law stipulates that one can marry or be married off upon attaining puberty. In prohibiting child marriages, local religious scholars applied the higher principles of shari’a, ethical considerations and modern medical knowledge and sensibility on the issue.
Hence, what should matter most is not past religious rulings but the present context, knowledge and moral awareness. This includes the most important consideration in the FGM debate: protection of the vulnerable. The global medical consensus is that there is no medical benefit to FGM and in some cases, it can be harmful. Discussions within the religious sphere should be informed by bringing in multiple voices of reason from both the religious and nonreligious sectors. Only then can we hope for a more informed public that can lead to a progressive change in attitude towards the continuing practice of female circumcision.
Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib
Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib is an editor of Progresif.net