Hat tip: Michelle Malkin, “Dad convicted for mutilating girl’s genitals.” The NBC news story, “Dad Convicted for Mutilating Girl’s Genitals” almost has the full story.
LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. — A jury Wednesday found an Ethiopian immigrant guilty of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter.
Human rights observers said they believe this is the first criminal case in the United States involving the 5,000-year-old African tradition. Khalid Adem, 30, was convicted of aggravated battery and cruelty to children. He could get up to 40 years in prison.
Sorry, 40 years is not nearly long enough. And I’ve got a few things to add to what is already a bloodcurdling report, so bear with it.
From a physiological standpoint, circumcision results in excessive stimulation to the sexual organ, which can result in actual sensations of pain during the sex act. I should know, I was circumcised shortly after birth. A circumcised sex organ may “look cleaner” but it is truly a mutilation, because the circumcised person, unless he or she is very lucky, is going to frequently have their sexual pleasure degraded because of this barbaric practice.
From a moral perspective, any optional change made to an individual’s physiology (such as circumcision, putting giant holes in the ears, big round discs in one’s lips) taken without the fully informed consent of the recipient is an immoral initiation of the use of force. By definition, a child is incapable of making such a fully informed decision and is totally dependent on the adults around him or her. If a responsible adult makes such a decision for the child, it is a gross violation of that adult’s responsibility to protect the child and constitutes the initiation of the use of force. In other words, it is wholly immoral and reprehensible.
As you might expect, I have an additional analysis that involves Islam.
While the AP news story did not specify whether Khalid Adem is a practicing Muslim, it is worth noting that his home country, Ethiopia, has a large Muslim population (according to Infoplease, Islam is the largest religion in Ethiopia, constituting 45-50% of the religious population). This means, that assuming Khalid believes in some sort of supreme deity, there is a 45-50% chance that he is Muslim – basically even odds. I added this knowledge to anecdotal information I had received that male (and female) circumcision was mandated according to Islam, so I decided to do some digging and see what I could learn.
What I learned is not pleasant.
Source Document: Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, in Arabic with facing English text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. This book is certified as accurate and accurately translated by Sheik ‘Abd Al-Wakil Durubi (Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha in Damascus, Syria), and Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Slaman (Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces). It is further certified as a “superior translation” and its author is lauded for his accuacy, correctness, and completeness, but Dr. Taha Jabir Al-’Alwani, President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Member of Islamic Fiqh Academy at Jedda, and President of the Fiqh Council of North America. Further, the book is certified as having an English translation corresponding to the original Arabic and conforming to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community. This certification is from Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar, General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation, Islamic Research Academy.
In other words, the source book is thoroughly certifed by Islamic religious leaders as accurately representing Islamic law. Keep this in mind as you read the following. Section c. The Nature of Legal Rulings, subsection 4.3 lists “Desireable Acts.” I quote:
c4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women For men it consist of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanfis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)
In the text, “O:” refers to a comment by Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat, while “A:” refers to a comment by Sheik ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi. “Ar.” means “the Arabic word”, so in the text above, “Ar. bazr” means that the prepuce of the clitoris is called bazr in Arabic. Finally “n:” refers to a note from the translator.
The “A:” comment says “Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna”, where the definition of sunna roughly translates to “the way of life prescribed as normative for Muslims on the basis of the teachings and practices of Muhammad and interpretations of the Koran.” In other words, sunna is a strong religious-cultural directive which, when coupled with the knowledge that Muhammad himself would have approved, ends up being all but obligatory. Muslims ignore such directives at their own peril.
The handbook of Islamic Law establishes as a general precept that both male and female circumcision (mutilation) is obligatory, even though the table of contents calls it merely a “desirable act.” This is a nice dance if you can get someone to play the right tune.
But wait, there’s more!
In the Notes and Appendices section of the book lies subsection w52.0, IBN JAHAR HAYTAMI’S LIST OF ENORMITIES. Before making a single quote from that section I need to place it in full context. Doing so entails some serious typing on my part and some serious reading on your part. Please be patient, the payoff is at the end.
Subsection w52.0 specifically cross-references back to subsection p76, which falls in (appropriately) section p. Enormities. I’ll be revisiting w52.0, but we are going to start from the top and drill down to build full context for it.
p0.0 THE AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION. (n: The first of the books translated as appendices to our basic text ‘umdat al-salik concers the enormities allude to above in the context of court testimony (dis: o24.3) <blogger’s note: o24.3 states that courtroom testimony is not acceptable from someone who has committed an enormity.> and has been edited from the Kitab al kaba’ir [Book of enormities] of Imam Dhahabi, who defines an enormity as any sin entailing either a threat of punishment in the hereafter explicity mentioned by the Koran or hadith, a prescribed legal penalty (hadd), or being accursed by Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace).)
(blogger’s note: emphasis in boldface mine)
Section p Enormities covers, in excruciating detail, all the minutiae of daily life which can cause one to be guilty of an “enormity.” Broadly, the enormities fit the following general principle: one must do everything mandated in the Koran, the Hadiths, and by Muhammad, and one must never do anything forbidden per the same sources. Committing an enormity, and not purifying it out of your system, too many times is a prescription for being declared an apostate, the penalty for which is death. (Subsection o8.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA) covers the subject in neck-breaking detail.) Section p. Enormities, not counting its table of contents, is about 60 pages long. You want to know all the details, buy the book and read them yourself, it’s too much (and a violation of copyright law) to post here.
The bottom line is that everything good is mandatory and everything bad is strictly forbidden (in a bindingly legal, we will cut your head off, kind of way).
Subsection p76, cross-referenced in revers from subsection w52.0, therefore in context means that we are talking about an enormity, according to the definition ascribed above. This subsection simply reads:
p76.0 (n: Most of the above enormities are agreed upon by all four schools of jurisprudence. A more comprehensive list by Ibn Hajar Haytami is given below at w52.)
The above quote cements the fact that the contents of w52 are indeed enormities as defined within the same book. We now know, before I quote out of w52, that we are talking about Islamic enormities, for which the commission thereof results in one or more of (a) a mortal sin, (b) a legal action against its committer, and (c) being accursed by Muhammad and, by extension, Allah.
Now, with full context having been given, here is a direct quote from w52:
w52(368) not getting circumcised, even after having reached puberty;
(… is an enormity)
Yes, it was a lot of work just to get to this one simple quote, but quoting out of context is just not helpful.
So what have we learned? We have learned that both male and female genital mutilation is obligatory according to Islamic Law, and that it is an enormity if one refuses to do it.
A follower of Islam can only resolve the enormity according to subsection p77.0 THE CONDITIONS OF A VALID REPENTANCE. Rather than doing a lot of quoting, I’ll summarize, and those of you with a copy of the source document should feel free to validate my summary.
Repentance. It’s obligatory for every sin (enormity), regardless of whether it was a big one or a small one. Repentance has three conditions.
- You have to stop sinning. Using circumcision as an example, this means, you would have to get circumcised.
- You have to really, really, sincerely regret having done (or not done) it. In full context, this means regretting it because it was an offense against Allah or his messenger or divine Islamic law, and not because you got caught.
- You have to resolve NEVER to do it again. Again using circumcision as an example, having the circumcision would mostly take care of this requirement, but you’d likely be admonished to encourage others to get circumcised, where appropriate, and ensure your children and spouse were circumcised as well.
To sum up: According to Muslim law, male and female circumcision (genital mutilation) is mandatory. Period. Even though Hanfis consider female circumcision to be just a courtesy to the husband, in the context of Islamic teachings a woman would still be committing an enormity if she didn’t get herself circumcised.
The claim that female circumcision is a “5,000 year old custom” in African countries may or may not have any merit. This article, from the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, starts off with a “Debate among Muslims” over whether female genital mutilation (“FGM”) is a valid religious practice:
… FGM is a social custom, not a religious practice. However, in those Muslim countries where it is practice, FGM is often justified by a controversial saying attributed to the Prophet Mohammed that seem to favor sunna circumcision. The authenticity of these sayings are unconfirmed, and some scholars have refuted them. Even if true, they only permit the practice; they do not mandate it.
Excuse me, but which part of the “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law” did these guys not bother to read? The article continues:
FGM has probably been performed for at least 1,400 years (some references estimate 2,000 years), and started during what Muslims call “al-gahiliyyah” (the era of ignorance). The Qu’r'an, Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament) is silent on the subject. The Sunnah (the words and actions of the Prophet Mohammed) contains a reference to female circumcision.
Note the “probably been performed” in the first part of the first sentence. At this point I note the approximate age of the religion of Islam: 1,300 years. And although female circumcision may not be referenced in the Qu’ran, it is certainly referenced in the Hadiths. The Qu’ran and the Hadiths together comprise the bulk of Islamic culture, religion, tradition, and law. The timing here for FGM is closely related to the timing of the rise of Islam. Coincidence? I think not.
The remainder of the article goes on to show arguments back and forth amongst Musltims who agree and disagree with the practice of FGM. However, the section “Debate Among Muslims” concludes by pointing out the following Egyptian fatwas on the subject:
- 1949-MAY-28: They decided that it is not a sin to reject female circumcision.
- 1951-JUN-23: They stated that female circumcision is desirable because it curbs “nature” (i.e. sexual drive among women). It stated that medical concerns over the practice are irrelevant.
- 1981-JAN-29: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised.
The NBC article statement that the practice is 5,000 years old cites questionable sources; it’s as though they went looking for references on the web and took the oldest number they could find. On a different web page I found references to a “world wide practice” (i.e., not originating in or specifying Africa) of FGM being either 5,000 or 4,000 years old, with the 4,000-year-old “custom” having the better authenticity with a “first recorded incident” in Egypt.
The point here is that NBC either has not done their homework, or is deliberately shielding the Muslim community from backlash over what was almost certainly an act performed out of obedience to Islamic law. To quote again from the NBC article:
“He said he wanted to preserve her virginity,” Fortunate Adem <his wife> testified this week. “He said it was the will of God. I became angry in my mind. I thought he was crazy.”
And …
His lawyer, Mark Hill, acknowledged that Adem’s daughter had been cut. But he implied that the family of Fortunate Adem, who immigrated from South Africa when she was 6, may have had the procedure done.
Bottom line: this was a mutilation mandated by Islamic law. And it is despicable.
– Cincinnatus
