Brava! But they will face an uphill battle, with opposition sure to come from Islamic clerics. "Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists 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 Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)" -- 'Umdat al-Salik e4.3.
"Women Finally Demand Law Against Genital Mutilation," from MISNA, August 7 (thanks to C. Cantoni):
Yesterday, some 700 activists, mostly women, have marched in favor of the introduction of laws to ban the practice of female genital mutilation (FMG) in Bamako. The demonstrators presented the request directly to parliament. The long overdue initiative, organized by the Coordination of women’s NGO’s in Mali, was repeated in other areas of the country, where more women also staged small gatherings. “The rate of FMG in Mali is very high, reaching some 92%” said Nicola Giovannini of the “No Peace without Justice” NGO to MISNA; the organization has been engaged in a vast campaign against female mutilation alongside Malian NGO’s. Giovannini said that in Mali, there is a strong political consensus for a law to ban the practice, but authorities have so far suggested that Malian society itself is not yet ready to penalize this terrible and very established practice. The participation in anti FMG protests suggests that there is an ever stronger – if long overdue - desire for change.
Here is what I preserved of the original comments to this article, made while we were using IntenseDebate.
First part.
MBR said - I was in Mali (Bamako and Timbuktoo) in 2002 and am not surprised at this protest by Malian women. The Islamic hardline was not in evidence, at least back then, alcohol was easily available to Europeans, and music and dancing were very much part of the culture.
But there have been reports more recently of growing terrorist training and presence along the width of the southern Sahara, not least in northern Mali.
BKHPALMER said - If one looks up the meaning of بظر (baTHr -- correct anglisation) in e.g. al-lisaan al-'arab or elsewhere it shows up as meaning 'clitoris' not 'prepuce of the clitoris'.
The note in parentheses in the english translation on this page of 'Umdat al-Salik is a lie.
MBR said - Yes. Nonie Dawish also covers this important point in her excellent study of sharia, "Cruel and Usual Punishment" (p. 76).
The tiresome taqiyya continues and requires tireless unmasking.
HESPERADO said - I want to second the comment of bkhpalmer above: Robert Spencer is apparently mistakenly purveying not only a mistranslation but an instance of blatant taqiyya in the translation of the 'Umdat al-Salik with regard to that explanatory note "prepuce of the clitoris, not clitoris".
About a year ago, another commenter here at Jihad Watch provided this information on it:
'Rev Dr Mark Durie discusses the way in which Nuh Ha Mim Keller, the English convert to Islam who translated the authoritative sharia law manual, 'Reliance of the Traveller' [= 'Umdat al-Salik], concealed (from those ignorant of Arabic) the full force of the Arabic text that describes female genital mutilation.'
[The JW commenter then quoted from Rev. Durie's explanation:]
"Female circumcision
‘Umdat al-Salik itself [in English] contains an example of misleading translation.
"In Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s edition, the original Arabic text is published facing the English translation. The English translation of the section on circumcision appears to be a deliberate mis-translation of the Arabic instructions for circumcising girls:
[The Arabic text] is translated by Nuh Hah Mim Keller as follows:
"Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists 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 Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)"
- However what the Arabic actually says is:
"Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called HufaaD)."
T-his deceptive translation obscures the Shafi’i law, given by ‘Umdat al-Salik, that circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris is mandatory. This form of female circumcision is widely practiced in Egypt, where the Shafi’i school of Sunni law is followed.
[The JW commenter then concluded:]
"EXCISION OF THE CLITORIS. So one whole school of Islamic law sees nothing wrong with CUTTING IT ALL OUT."
-BASEBALLMAVEN said- The muslims wouldn't want to make the mistake of having women enjoy sex...she's just a semen receptacle for her husband.
IPSOFACTO posted a long comment attempting to equate male circumcision, as practised by Jews and some others, with FGM.
-BEAUTYOFREASON replied - I also agree with you that circumcision is unnecessary and undesirable for males and females.
In females, however, all of the nerves are concentrated in the clitoris so FGM is far worse than male circumcision, comparable to severing the penis.
BEAUTYOFREASON then added - "How sad. The right to pleasure and orgasm is a birthright for all human beings....to cut out the clitoris destroys that ability in women....
I compare FGM to foot binding: it mutilates a natural gift, impairs it at the expense of health and future enjoyment.
There is nothing moderate or justifiable about such a practice.
It is simply pure hell, inflicted on half the population for the egos of the other half.
It's hard to believe that there are still people in the world who demand that sort of mutilation against females, in the name of religion or culture.
I shouldn't be surprised that Islam in Egypt and Indonesia condones the behavior. I know I can expect immoral behavior from that faith and still the reality will be more brutal than what I imagine."
END of first part of what I kept of the original comments to this article - dda.
Second and final part of what I kept of the original comments to this article.
HESPERADO said - The other angle on this problem: Islam as a culture -- or rather, as a Super-Culture -- commands an ability to inform and regulate the behavior of masses of people stronger than most other cultures today.
The spectacle of the yearly Hajj -- with its millions of regimented worshippers -- is one example of many.
Given this ability of Islam to inform and regulate the behavior of its masses
-- not a "monolithic" capability but far more effective than other cultures are able to do in modern times (with the possible exception of Red China, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany -- what great company Islam keeps!) --
Muslims have no excuse for the prevalence of FGM in many of their lands.
I.e. -- If Muslims wanted to eliminate this practice, they could do it far more easily than could any other culture.
The reason they can't -- or won't -- is simply because there is just enough enablement of it found in the Sayings (Hadith) of Mohammed to effectively hinder any attempts to eliminate it.
-SILVESTER replied - Spot on, Hesperado. And the same goes for 'honour' killings.
Islam - paganism wrapped in monotheistic garb. (can't remember who said it.)
HOURGLASSF said - "FGM in islam proves one thing: muslim women are the biggest enemies to each other and to themselves.
"Certainly, Islam permits and encourages this barbaric act but who do you think actually performs the "procedure" on girl childs? The women of course!
"I once watched this horrific clip of a girl child undergoing FGM, her mutilator and spectators were women.
"Every book that I have read which a woman, who in graphic detail, recounts her experience of FGM was performed by the local mutilator - a woman."
END of my record of original comments made to this article - dda.