At Last! Egypt Outlaws Female Circumcision
It is about time that Egypt’s state appointed Grand Mufti outlaws female genital mutilation.
“The harmful tradition of circumcision that is practised in Egypt in our era is forbidden,” Mufti Ali Gomaa was quoted as saying by the Egyptian state news agency MENA.
This statement was the strongest against such practice by the Mufti. It was stated earlier that female circumcision is un-Islamic but many other Muslim clerics have supported it.
Both Tantawi, the Grand Sheikh of Cairo’s prestigious al-Azhar mosque and Coptic Pope Shenouda, the leader of Egypt’s minority Christian community, have said that neither the Koran nor the Bible demand or mention female circumcision, which is usually performed on pre-pubescent girls.(Reuters)
Egypt took a stand and banned genital female mutilation after the death of an eleven year old girl undergoing the procedure at a private medical clinic in southern Egypt only last Thursday 21/06/2007. She died due to a high dose of general anesthetic. Side effects from the procedure itself can include hemorrhage, shock and sexual dysfunction.
Genital female mutilation is often viewed as a way to protect a girl’s chastity and honor in preventing a woman from having any sexual needs or desires. It is a way to suppress women.
It is a common practice performed on both Muslim and Christian girls in Egypt and Sudan, but is extremely rare in most of the rest of the Arab world. It is also common in Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia.
A 2005 UNICEF report on the practice showed that 97 percent of Egyptian women between ages 15 and 49 had been circumcised.
I was a bit hesitant at first in writing about this subject when I first read about it in the papers, but this problem is present and when I saw the last report done that showed an extremely high number of women and little girls going through such horror and suppression, I had to bring it up in a blog.
We have to fight the atrocity and brutal crimes these societies have against women! I find it really shocking that at this day and age such practices are still wide spread.
The problem is that many still support such practices on little girls, for honor they say!
In the days of ignorance (before Islam), it was quite common to bury little girls alive because of the shame they brought on a family once they were born. They have found another way of doing so by brutally suppressing women and young girls in this era.
Join the Conversation
I’m sorry but if female circumcision is wrong than so is male circumcision.
No. I disagree with you..
It has been proven medically that male circumcision is cleaner and prevents many infections in men. It is a removal of a skin that has NO NERVE ENDINGS so it has NO effect what so ever on their sex life. However, in women this practice actually cuts off the nerve endings causing a woman to loose any kind of feeling.
To understand more (since I don’t want to make this a biology lesson) I advise you to read on the matter before making any more judgements based on ignorance.
I’m sorry but if cutting off an infant female’s prepuce is ‘female genital mutilation’ than cutting off an infant male’s prepuce is ‘male genital mutilation’. The later probably has more functional implications, the only reason why the former is considered more disgusting to our sensibilities is because most people typically don’t do it (it is btw a myth that female circumcision eliminates any sexual response, it just reduces it, as does male circumcision). Both sexually violate non-consenting individuals in an irreversible way.
>>
False. Here are the facts.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=237
>>
I can only hope you’ll take your own advice.
From my source:
Circumcision radically desensitizes the penis. The rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin are severed. The loss of the protective foreskin obviously desensitizes the glans. Since the membrane covering the glans is now exposed and subjected to constant abrasion, it becomes desensitized, dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now out of sexual function.
I advise you to read these articles before making judgements
Many studies conducted proved that it reduces HIV virus spread that causes AIDS
and read the next on benifits of male circumcision
ooops here is the sites stating the benifits of male circumcision
my pc is going mad
I’ll just copy paste them
http://www.circs.org/library/moses/index.html
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
and many more.. but I don’t want to mention every site and article on the net that supports what I say..
oh.. I forgot to mention that female circumcision has so many negative consequences as stated by the WHO (World Health Organization)
So.. please spare me the myth crap!
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
(I thank you moderator for deleting my repeated replies..it was crazy
Rasha, those are not scientific studies. Even the data on this is inconsistence. For example, from the circs.org site.
6.9% are circumcised, 8.4% are HIV positive in the Mehendale study
2.1% are circumcised, 4.5% are HIV positive in the Kapiga study
87.3% are circumcised, 5.8% are HIV positive in the Lavreys study
76.6% are circumcised, 8.2% are HIV positive in the Cameron study
Inconsistancy within your own source.
Many studies conducted proved that it reduces HIV virus spread that causes AIDS
***
lol maybe parents should chop off the whole thing; that would definitely deter the spread of HIV.
Rasha,
There have been studies where male circumcision has not been shown to prevent the spread of AIDs. See http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v20_4/NWvol20-4malecurcumsion.htm
where it says
Guys.. when you read the literature out there about the subject, you will find a lot of pros and cons on male circumcision although medically they compare female circumcision with actually cutting off a man’s penis.
So.. there is no comparison between circumcision in males vs females.
(and this was the major point in the article)
Now, going back to the male circumcision that you all object to, I really do believe in it’s advantages, it is a preventive method of so many infections to both male and his mate (spouse).
Anyways this has been a heated debate by physicians for many years. But I leave you with two other links I would like you to look at.
The 1st has MANY studies with references showing the benefits of such medical treatment
http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/misc/circum1.htm
The second also points out the advantages
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/105/3/620
I went through some articles that were opposing it, many due to legal/consent issues and some revealed exactly the opposite statistics to the above links
Some might find this a little too graphic, but we are all here to learn from one another.
Jina, you are right .. I overlooked these mistakes
I think it is ridiculous that some people expect Rasha to speak out against male circumcision just because she has decided to speak out against FGM. What we are seeing in the comments section shows how data can be manipulated in order to create a political agenda. The way katz_killer talks, you’d think that circumcized men have lost an enormous level of sexual function on par with what occurs with FGM’d women. But I think just about every woman in the Middle East who’s encountered a (horny and you know it!) man can testify to the opposite effect. I can guarantee that every single one of the woman blogging at MEY could testify from personal experience that there are no women in Egypt, the Levant, the Maghreb, or Persian Gulf complaining about the need for men with foreskin because they can’t get the attention of the local guys due to mutilated penis syndrome. In this case, I think I’ll take anecdotal evidence as being crucial. I mean, think about it. If circumcision in men greatly reduced sexual desire, what is the logic behind the niqab? The niqab itself is a testement to the fact that circumized men are mighty horny, right?
The fact of the matter is that females very often complain of feeling victimized by FGM whereas the overwhelming majority of males are either glad or neutral about it happening to themselves. Let’s not pretend these two situations are on par with each other. Women often greatly suffer trauma from circumcision, not only physically but also emotionally and psychologically; men generally do not.
Rasha clearly is motivated to end suffering. Kudos to her!
One of the main things that you have to deal with to change the tradition of FMG is the fact that the tradition is, oddly enough, a female tradition that is perpetuated by the older women in a village. Girls are told that no man would want to marry an uncircumcised woman…and having no other source of information, they believe it. Somehow you have to break into the women’s chain of tradition to let the girls know that what the old women are saying simply isn’t so. This is an old African pre-Christian/Muslim tradition dating probably thousands of years, so change is not going to be that easy. Among the middle and upper classes, it is not practiced at all, so perhaps the key is in the educational institutions…but discussion of these topics is not something that is part of the Egyptian educational curriculum as yet, to say the least. At least the fatwa by the Grand Mufti is a step in the right direction.
I agree with you the fatwa is a step and education through media, health care providers..etc should be emphasized
Good comment PV, I agree with you.
I just read your comment PV, thank you for understanding and pointing out the cause behind this article..
Women are the victims here..
My objective is to point out (diagnose) these problems and diseases we suffer from in our societies to enable us to understand them better and treat them.
For the guys who are saying how pleased they are that their parents cut up their genitals without asking, i think its really quite irrelevant to the question of infant genital mutilation. Consent or lack of consent is what distinguishes sex from rape, cosmetic modifications from disfigurement, and the fact that some men would have consented does not detract from the violation and sexual degradation to those who wouldn’t. In part i would guess machismo notions of masculinity probably obscure this for what it is; i think when it comes to women and the issue of female genital mutilation its a lot easier to be politically clear on the issue because theres less cultural baggage.
female genital mutilation has two most common types:
type II “excision” Excision is the total or partial removal of the prepuce, the clitoris and/or the labia minora.
Type III “Infibluation” is the total amputation of all of the external genitalia together with the stitching together of the remainder of the labia majora… A small opening is left for urination.
SO IT JUST REDUCES THE SEXUAL PLEASURE OF WOMEN?!??!? IT OUTRIGHTS ABOLISHES IT. As well as it takes a woman 15 minutes to urinate through that opening.
Secondly Male circumcision involves the removal of 1 cm of skin just enough to be at the level of the Glans penis whick a.k.a is the most sensitive part of the penis that rim, ridge on the penis itself. What is removed in the males is JUST SKIN.. THE PENIS itself is Not touched. ofcourse nerve endings in skin is gone but the skin below it has nerve endings you do not lose your sense of touch pleasure.. what hides in that foreskin is alot alot of WHITISH SECRETIONS that is trapped.. Half or MORE MEN will not properly clean it.
IN FEMALE MUTILATION YOU REMOVE MUCOUS MEMEBRANE NOT SKIN.. WHAT IS VIOLATED IN WOMEN IS WHAT CORRESPONDS TO YOUR GLANS PENIS THE HEAD AND RIDGE.
ALSO MEN FIND PLEASURE AT THE BASE OF THE PENIS NEAR THE PERINEUM WHICH AGAIN IS NOT TOUCHED.
SO PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE THE TWO.
ONE IS OUTRIGHT MUTILATION
THE OTHER IS cutting of 1cm or less skin that covers the glans penis. so it can breathe.
Circumcision on either gender is immoral. There is a different between male circumcision and female circumcision.
And katz_killer, your source made me laugh. Using one of the most racist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim outlet is just silly. And the article seem like it’s written by a high schooler. “It is almost unheard of in Europe, South America, and non-Muslim Asia. The inhabitants there know better.”
So are the men.
If you think circumcision only affects females, then you are creating a double standard.
Good for Egypt! They signed the Cairo Declaration against FGM, as I recall. In fact, isn’t their First Lady very involved in efforts to stop the practice?
I didn’t feel like scouring the internet for a scholarly article on male genital mutilation.
You just compared them.
I’m with PV. Yaaaay!
Jina,
If a man’s penis gets cut off, only then would I consider what he goes through equal to what a woman feels when she goes through FGM.
About the ethical/legal battle in (male circumcision), many have argued why should we vaccinate a child without his consent? (I know it sounds silly to some, but it is in the literature) since both are considered PREVENTIVE health measures.
Vaccination don’t cause permenant damage in most cases. Your comparison doesn’t make any sense.
I am not comparing between male and female circumcision and trying to say they are the same
I am arguing to your view that male circumcision is somehow healthy when it only takes 20 minutes maybe less to teach a 10 year old about how to clean his dickie in regards to what Wafa wrote.
Vaccination is preventive health only if you look at it that way, since nothing we can do that will enable us from becoming immune to a bug, what part of this is preventive? But when it comes to cleaning your dickie, point Wafa made, it takes 30 seconds in a shower.
Cutting parts of your private spot is a result of lack of education in your part of the world. It has nothing to do with health or whatever is the excuse you make for whatever the gender.
Middle Eastern/African countries should adopt the curriculum we have in the West or this issue is not going anywhere.
Rasha: “If a man’s penis gets cut off, only then would I consider what he goes through equal to what a woman feels when she goes through FGM.”
err not really.
“About the ethical/legal battle in (male circumcision), many have argued why should we vaccinate a child without his consent? (I know it sounds silly to some, but it is in the literature) since both are considered PREVENTIVE health measures.”
Circumcision doesn’t prevent anything. It may slightly decrease the risk, but it does not prevent.
It should also be pointed out that we aren’t actually talking about children but infants, and infants unlike children are actually physically incapable of making decisions for themselves because they’re unable to express preference or consent as they can’t talk.
wafa: “WHAT IS VIOLATED IN WOMEN IS WHAT CORRESPONDS TO YOUR GLANS PENIS THE HEAD AND RIDGE.”
What you’re describing is a more extreme type of female genital mutilation, there are also more extreme types of male genital mutilation practiced in the same areas that do those types of things; it doesn’t mean that the more common milder type is acceptable.
“Secondly Male circumcision involves the removal of 1 cm of skin just enough to”
Crazy false
Well, I’m a guy and I won’t say I’m pleased or displeased about it. I never even thought about it until I was exposed to intellectual exercises like this. I have never once agonized over my mancandy, or ever had any clue I had been circumcized until I was told about it. On the other hand, many thousands of women complain about different problems from FGM yearly. So you see, your comparison is not appropriate when you move beyond the initial act and consider its impact upon life and livlihood.
Rasha, for example, obviously is concerned with the level and magnitude of suffering, and about trying to enact policy specifically to limit as much suffering as possible. As a human rights activist, she has every moral right to direct her energy where it is needed most. She’s not going to go and cater to men who are sexually functional and very comfortable in their pants when she can cater to women who are not sexualy functional and are legitimately suffering. Why should she? As a healer, she is going to focus on stopping trauma first, and then dealing with cosmetic issues second even if you say a cut-is-a-cut. Is that really so hard for you to understand?
And thanks Esra’a and Drima.
Nicely said, PV.
If I remember my boy scout training, you point the hose at the hottest part of the fire.
I’ll add my voice to Esra’a, Drima, and Grumpy: what PV is saying here is plain logic….obviously MGM creates no problems whatsoever to males subjected to it, while women do suffer thier whole lives coz of an act that was taken against them as kids and babies.
Am not a man, and i might not be fully aware of the magnitude the removal of extra skin on their penis might cause, but if this extra skin has no relevance to any of the roles played by this organ in a male’s life, then why not remove it, espicially if it will cause no harm, and leaving it might bring about infections later on? I mean, didnt some of us go under the knife to remove the appendix due to inflamations caused by it? Of course, the example her is different, but what am trying to say is that if there is a possibilty of preventing infections by removing a useless part of our body in an unharmful operation, then why not?
I’ve been following the debate here for the last couple of days and I’d like to point a couple of things out. First off, I don’t know where Jina and krazy_katz get their info about male circumcision in the west. Most (>75%) of my non-Jewish/Muslim American friends were circumised at birth. It’s a routine procedure designed to reduce infections and STDs. The procedure is much less common in Europe but also not unheard of.
Secondly, in medicine, nothing is full proof, i.e., there is no black or white but only shades of gray. Male circumcision has been shown by several clinical studies to reduce the risk of bacterial and viral infections. In other words, statistically, the odds of a circumcised penis getting infected are lower. You can think of it as analogous to eating a balanced diet – reducing your carb and fat intake will not eliminate the risk of cardiovascular disease, but statistically, your chances of survival are improved. Currently, there is still a debate going on about the added health value of circumcision, though it seems from my browsing of the literature on PubMed that more and more clinicians do think it is worthwhile. So male circumcision (unlike female circumcision which has no added health effect), can be thought of as a sort of vaccination.
Want to enlighten me about what I said because I sure as hell don’t get what you are saying about what I said.
Jina, you said
or as I understood, that in the enlightened west men are not circumcised for health/hygienic reasons.
I simply said that most of my male friends in the US that are not Jewish and not Muslim (2 religions that practice ceremonial religious male circumcision) were also circumcised. In other words, many men I know in the US were circumcised at birth, so I am not sure your self-prescribed “curriculum” is totally accurate.
David Levitz: “It’s a routine procedure designed to reduce infections and STDs. The procedure is much less common in Europe but also not unheard of.”
Secular circumcision originated in the mid 19th century as a way to reduce masturbation in children.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Chronology.html
the entire point of it was, as with female circumcision in africa, is to reduce children’s sexual enjoyment.
Define West for me and what’s the circumcision rate in the past decade in the West. Keeping it in mind that West != Just USofA.
FGM must be baned by law anywhere in the world. Male circumcision be restricted to difficulty in micturition, pain during coitus. Otherwise there is no medical indication.
Ikhs! FGM makes me shudder….. can’t even try to be rational about it.
Since most agree it’s not a religious/Islamic issue, why then must Mufti Ali Gomaa make a fatwa about it? Why not just call it a crime against a child ?
And this uncut European would like to outlaw male circ as well, if I had my way. If you’re an adult, sane male, and you seriously believe mutilating your member pleases God or keeps you safe from HIV, then knock yourself out for all I care. But leave the children to grow up and decide for themselves.
Here in DK there has been some scores of Somali girls being sent back to be circ’d…. due to education it has practically ended.
“if there is a possibilty of preventing infections by removing a useless part of our body in an unharmful operation, then why not?”
How do you know it’s useless if you don’t have it ?
Circumcision is an outrageous practice when inflicted upon those who are overpowered and held down, or are too small to fight back. If an adult wants to have it done to themselves for some reason as Halim Kazi states, then let them select to have it done to themselves. But inflicting this upon people who do not want it done to them is barbaric, especially with the minors. It has no right being practiced in this world at this time. It is the amputation of a portion of the body that was given to us by God – taken away by arrogant humans. No clinical medical tests have ever proven this form of mutiliation to be of definite medical value.
I know that in southern part of Iran, some people still practice FGM! it should be banned everywhere in the world!
Update: These group of people who practice FGM are Sunni Muslims. the question for me is, why do Sunni Muslims practice FGM but Shia Muslims don’t?
Classical Sunni jurists as well as classical Shia jurists are in favor of male and female circumcision. Both quote a narration of Prophet Muhammad: “The circumcision is a sunnah for men and makrumah (meritorious act)for women”.
For me, both male and female circumcision, if practiced without medical reason, are a violation of physical integrity.
If interested, you may read my writings in different languages about this topic in my website http://www.sami-aldeeb.com