Fatal sedition: Noor Farida Ariffin kept in line with rape threats

This article was first published on Muslimah Media Watch.

I recently became aware of rape threats made on social media towards Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, a well-respected former Malaysian ambassador to the Netherlands. Also a lawyer, she was the co-founder ofSisters in Islam, a local non-governmental organisation for women’s rights, and is the spokesperson of a local group of prominent Malays called G25.

In December 2014, G25 published an open letter to the Malaysian government calling for, among other things, “a rational dialogue on the position of Islam in a constitutional democracy“. Signed by 25 former high-ranking civil servants, including directors-general, secretaries-general, ambassadors and prominent individuals, the letter demands a second look at the position and application of Islamic laws in the country, as well as the jurisdiction and limits of the powers that religious authorities can have.

Why then, is her dissenting opinion not even tolerated, but considered an invitation to threats of murder and rape?

Among other points, the letter focused on a minister’s response to a recent court ruling that transgender women in Malaysia have the right “to dress according to their identity”. Even though this state ruling is in favour of a marginalised group — and therefore should be seen as justice, the main objective of Islamic law — the fact that it is related to women, their sexuality and/or their appearance makes it a favourite target for being a threat to Islam and society at large.

“… [Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom] viewed the right of the transgender community and Sisters in Islam (SIS) to seek legal redress as a ‘new wave of assault on Islam’ and as an attempt to lead Muslims astray from their faith, and put religious institutions on trial in a secular court.”

The letter also highlighted the need for marginalised populations (like the poor) to feel safe from state intrusions of an individual’s privacy. One Shariah Criminal Offenses law in particular targets low-income unmarried couples who are found to be guilty of the crime of khalwat, or ‘close proximity’. Noor Farida says that “personal sin” should not be considered a crime that is punishable by the state.

The Department of Islamic Advancement of Malaysia (JAKIM) conducts regular ambushes to catch those engaged in khalwat, which have sometimes resulted in injuries or even death. Many of these ambushes are posted on YouTube to serve the sordid purpose of a public hanging. MMW writer Alicia sums this up in her piece on sexual immorality in Malaysia:

“Too often, sexual immorality is intertwined with class: cases of close proximity (khalwat) involve couples caught in budget hotels, in cars parked in quiet places, and in public parks, couples who cannot afford to marry or hire a room at an expensive hotel, a place very rarely ventured by the moral police.”

The letter invited scornful responses from two Malay rights NGOs, Malaysian Muslim Solidarity (ISMA) and right-wing Perkasa. ISMA, a group known for its Malay-centric voice, resorted to “personal taunts” such as suggesting that the letter’s “expired” authors should “go back to masjids and repent“, while Perkasa’s secretary-general merely questioned if the authors had done anything at all for Malaysia.

During a talk on “Fighting Religious Extremism in Malaysia” in London recently, Noor Farida gave a review of recent incidents of rising religious extremism in Malaysia, as recounted by Mariam Mokhtar of Free Malaysia Today:

“But the current reality, she said, was a disturbing picture of Islamic NGOs and religious authorities wielding power over a cowed population, with the Malays being watched by a brutal and unapologetic moral police who act like thugs and the non-Malays and non-Muslims subject to intense provocation.”

She gave a laundry list of vile acts which involved body snatching, the conversion of minors, the ‘Allah’ issue, the seizure of Bibles and the actions of born-again Muslims. She also spoke of Muslims being persecuted through mindless acts perpetrated by the religious authorities.

The threat of rape serves to intimidate, and showing women their ‘proper’ place in society simply contributes to the preservation of patriarchy as the status quo

In early December this year, Noor Farida was at a G25 forum on Islam and democracy. The forum aimed at creating an inclusive Consultative Committee of Experts to advise the government on amending state shariah law, within the requirements of the Federal Constitution and National Principles (Rukun Negara).

Her call for a review on the crime of khalwat was met with threats of murder and rape on social media. Facebook user Al Mujahid Arman posted “[her blood is halal]” while another Facebook user Sharul Nizam Ab Rahim threatened to break into her house and rape her.

Despite lodging police reports, the police were slow to investigate and to date, the two men have neither been caught nor convicted. Meanwhile, Noor Farida herself is under investigation for sedition. The Sedition Act, an “outdated colonial vestige”, has been increasingly used to “suppress legitimate offline and online dissent in Malaysia“. Put simply, as her opinion is contrary to ‘official Islam’, she must be silenced.

Looking through the lenses of age, gender, class and race is essential. Since Noor Farida is Malay and Muslim, being a high-ranking government official (and an elderly woman who does not wear hijab) means that she upsets notions of a proper Malay woman. (Although being a young hijabi politician in Malaysia brings with it another set of stereotypes.) As such, she must be ideologically disciplined by both the state (Sedition Act) and the public (Facebook).

Noor Farida has many important points on religious extremism and how religious laws can coexist with secular ones. Why then, is her dissenting opinion not even tolerated, but considered an invitation to threats of murder and rape? Because the threat of rape serves to intimidate, and showing women their ‘proper’ place in society simply contributes to the preservation of patriarchy as the status quo.

When transphobia blocks justice for survivors of sexual violence

Trigger Warning: This post contains discussion of underage rape and of transphobia

Four months ago, the Singaporean newspaper The Straits Times ran a few articles on a case involving Malay Muslim transgender man Zunika Ahmad, 39. He had been charged with 20 counts of sexually penetrating a girl, a minor who was between the age of 13 and 14 at the time of the offenses between April 2012 and December 2013, with a dildo.

Last week, the same newspaper ran several more articles to update on the decision of the High Court. High Court Senior Judge Kan Ting Chiu, acquitted Zunika of six charges (although Zunika was convicted of one charge of sexual exploitation and sentenced to eight months’ jail). The judge said that Section 376A of the Penal Code implies that only a person with a penis (i.e a man) can be guilty of sexual penetration: “The reference to a person who has a penis cannot be construed to include a woman without doing violence to common sense and anatomy.”

What’s interesting about this case is that while the offender is a man and should be considered as one, the sex he was assigned at birth was used to erase his sexual offenses.

Earlier coverage of the story in December 2015 spoke of Zunika as a person with “gender dysphoria” and describes a transgendered man as someone “who was born a woman but identifies as male“. The newspaper’s representation of Zunika as a trans person is mixed; it uses the wrong pronouns throughout, but in other ways it could even be considered sympathetic: Zunika felt “betrayed by her [sic] own body” when he entered puberty.

Not being able to express his gender identity is portrayed as a source of mental distress (“When her mother forbade her from going for a sex change operation, she cut her forearms […]”). Zunika was expected to be able to go for sex reassignment surgery and “rebuild” his life.

While a medical diagnosis of ‘gender dysphoria’ suggests that this condition is something innate and fixed, words and phrases used in the newspaper’s language, such as “bogus persona“, “disguised as man“, “fooled” and “her real gender” imply that transgendered people are also deceptive and manipulative. Furthermore, the pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ are used consistently throughout all articles – even if the term “transgender man” is used – to further emphasise that transgendered men are actually still women.

What is the purpose of law when it cannot bring about justice?

There is also a tone of incredulity at any type of marriage that is out of the heteropatriarchal norm. This is shown by the putting in apostrophes the words “married”, “husband” and “wives”. Such marriages cannot possibly be real or recognised because they do not involve the union of two people of opposite biological sexes.

The most important issue at hand, however, is the sexual exploitation of a minor. The first article describes the sex as “consensual” even though the victim was below 16 years old, the age of consent in Singapore. The purpose behind legal ages of consent is to protect minors, who are presumed to not be able to give informed consent due to unequal relations of power. Sex with a minor under 16 is an offence with or without the minor’s consent, let alone a 13- or 14-year-old having sex with someone more than 20 years older.

More disturbing perhaps is the squabbling over legal definitions (i.e. sexual offender must be a man, must have penis, etc) over the actual application of the law to derive justice (protecting a victim who was a minor at the time of the crime).

“If a court were to interpret A to include a woman, it would be rewriting the law, said [High Court Senior Judge Kan Ting Chiu]. [He] said the ‘better course’ was to leave it to the legislature to amend the provision to make it clear that A includes a woman, if that was indeed the intention.”

While the subject of this analysis is a Muslim transgender man, the insistence of the media on framing him as a woman raises several interesting points.

First, representing transgendered persons in the media only in relation to sexual offenses serves to strengthen the link between being a sexual minority and a moral deviant. In this case, Zunika not only committed the moral crime of deception, but also adultery (“cheats on wives“), paedophilia and deviant sex acts (“using sex toy“) in addition to a whole list of other charges.

“Besides the sexual offences, Zunika is also accused of four counts of using a forged Indonesian passport at Singapore checkpoints, and one count each of voluntarily causing hurt and permitting a false entry to be made at the registry of births and deaths. She will be dealt with on these charges separately.”

Second, we should be vigilant of the use of religion to provide a cover for sexual abuse. The victim, known as R, said: “My family trusted her because she has her own family and seemed very religious. She taught me and my siblings how to pray and made me wear a hijab.” Apparently Zunika also wore an “ankle-length robe and turban during religious occasions,” Arabised items of clothing that give the wearer more religious legitimacy.

Third, we need to be aware of the history of laws. The Penal Code was enacted in the late 19th century in British colonies, based on British law and understandings of society at that time. While British law today may have evolved through amendments, many former colonies remain with fossilised versions of colonial-era law that limit sexual offenses to sexual penetration with a human penis, for example.

As a mirror to Section 376A, the Penal Code also does not recognise men or boys as victims of rape, since Section 375 of the Penal Code states that a victim of rape must have a vagina. This eliminates many other types of sexual offenses that may not involve penetration, or that may involve the violent use of other objects.

Ultimately, such laws fail to protect the underage victim, whether it is a boy or girl. And what is the purpose of law when it cannot bring about justice?

This article was first published on Muslimah Media Watch

Why does an Indonesian woman need to be a virgin to join the military?

This article was first published on Muslimah Media Watch.

Source

An expose by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in November 2014 on the use of virginity tests in Indonesia’s police force has revealed that just because people are silent over a long-standing practice, it doesn’t mean that it is accepted as a normal part of everyday life. Also referred to as the “two-finger test”, it involves a female physician inserting two fingers into the vagina to check for vaginal laxity and the presence of an intact hymen. Women who failed the test are not necessarily rejected, but may receive fewer points for their physical assessment and have further background checks.

The head of the national police law division, Inspector General Moechgiyarto told the media that “the chief objective of the test was to ensure that female cadets lived up to high moral standards” and implied that non-virgins (at least according to the test) are prostitutes and therefore unacceptable candidates.

The tests have been taking place since at least 1984, according to a testimony by a retired female air force officer given to HRW. This HRW report calls for an “[immediate] end the use of so-called virginity tests, which violate the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment under international human rights law.” According to HRW’s research, all branches of the military – air force, army, and navy – have been requiring the test for decades for not only women planning to enter the military but also the fiancées of military officers. Women with connections to powerful or important people in the military can pay bribes to avoid the test, or obtain a favourable assessment.

In interviews with HRW, women who have undergone the test described the experience as “tense”, “embarrassing”, “humiliating”, “against the rights of every woman” and a form of “trauma”. A female doctor who had administered the test described it as “torture”, even.

Several Indonesian ministers and senior military officials are defending the practice. However, the country’s highest Islamic authority, The Indonesian Council of Ulema, says that the practice goes against Muslim jurisprudence. A district head ulema, Syarifudin Damanhuri, suggested “a religion test instead, arguing that it would give military recruiters a better profile of an individual’s character”.

The Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) chairman Haris Azhar said in the Straits Times that the police has no good reason for requiring the test.

“The police should be ashamed. They’re not moral police. It actually makes us question the morality of the police force itself.”

As a practice instituted by the state, the test appears to serve two purposes:

1. To teach what it means to be a proper Indonesian woman, wife and/or military recruit.
2. To keep Indonesian female soldiers subordinate to their male superiors and the masculine state.

The work of Nira Yuval-Davis on gender in nationalist projects helps us to understand this better. While men are usually discussed in terms of their physical abilities to defend the nation, women are spoken of in terms of their capacities to produce citizens and therefore define the borders of a nation. They are the “symbolic bearers of the collectivity’s identity and honour”. With their “‘proper’ behavior” and “‘proper’ clothing”, women “embody the line which signifies the collectivity’s boundaries.” Women in the military thus carry a double burden.

"The test is discriminatory and degrading."

Indeed, the head of Indonesia’s Armed Forces General Moeldoko sees Indonesian women as being responsible for the identity of the military and the state. In The Jakarta Globe,

“[Moeldoko] conceded, though, that there was no direct link between a woman being a virgin and her abilities as a member of the armed forces, but insisted that virginity was a gauge of a woman’s morality — one of the three key traits he said a woman must have to serve in the [Indonesia Armed Forces], along with high academic aptitude and physical strength.”

There is obviously the double standard which absolves Indonesian men of the need to be ‘moral virgins’. National Commission on Violence Against Women (Komnas Perempuan) chair Yuniyanti Chuzaifah explains best why virginity tests are wrong – and in the plainest words. (Her commission has requested a meeting with the chief of the national police to discuss the issue.)

“It is wrong to judge women based on the rupture of the hymen. The virginity test violates the right of women to work – in this case to become a police officer. Moreover, their male counterparts do not take a similar test or face judgment over their virginity. The test is discriminatory and degrading.”

The fact that senior officials saw the need to defend virginity testing only after HRW’s call to stop it suggests that what it means to be the ideal Indonesian/Muslim woman is often reinforced in opposition to the imagined Western/non-Muslim woman. Indonesian women should not have sex before marriage, gaining a superior moral status from their chastity. Their morality affects not only the reputation of their (military) husbands and (military) families, but also the “dignity and the honour of the nation.”

At the same time, the test is not accepted by the women who have to undergo it. In an interview with HRW, one retired air force officer wondered how she could “defend the honour of our nation if we cannot defend our own honour” by undergoing such tests. Could this test be a way to remind women who do make it into the military that no matter how strong or intelligent they are, they will not be treated the same as men when it comes to defending their country?

Nira Yuval-Davis acknowledges this “ambivalent position” that women have within the nation.

“On the one hand (…) they often symbolise the collectivity unity, honour and the raison d’etre of specific national and ethnic projects, like going to war. On the other hand, however, they are often excluded from the collective ‘we’ of the body politic, and retain an object rather than a subject position. […] Strict cultural codes of what it is to be a ‘proper’ woman are often developed to keep women in this inferior power position.”

Watch: Malaysian NGO uncovers 8 misconceptions about polygamy

Where I grew up, polygamy was normalised through the actions, stories and tacit approval of the adults around me. Even though the negative side of having multiple wives were not ignored, there was no struggle for justice either. In retrospect, the apathy surrounding the women who were suffering is astounding.

A Malaysian NGO, Sisters in Islam (SIS), produced a short video illustrating the myths and realities around polygamy in Malaysia. From 2007 to 2012, the NGO carried out in-depth interviews with 63 respondents from polygamous families, on the impact that this marriage institution has in Malaysia. According to the information on their YouTube account:

"SIS hopes that the data gathered from our nationwide research on the impact of polygamy on families will prompt the relevant authorities to re-look and reform current Islamic Family Laws on polygamy in Malaysia."

[transcript below]

#1
People say... Polygamy is the undeniable right of a Muslim man.

In reality... Based on Surah An Nisa (Quran 4:3), polygamy is only allowed in order to protect the property and welfare of orphans whose fathers were killed in war.

#2
People say... Men practise polygamy to fulfill the sunnah (practice) of Prophet Muhammad.

In reality... 70% of husbands surveyed admitted to practising polygamy because of sexual attraction.

#3
People say... Co-wives tolerate polygamy for emotional and material reasons.

In reality... 42% of second wives work overtime to support household expenses.
32% were forced to contribute to expenses of the husband, his first wife and their children.
56% of husbands failed to provide sufficient nafkah (allowance), while some did not provide any allowance at all.

#4
People say... Only men with sufficient wealth practise polygamy.

In reality... Men who cannot afford to practise polygamy still do so.
70% of husbands interviewed earn MYR 3000 (USD 700) monthly or less.

#5
People say... Polygamous men divide their time fairly between their wives and children.

In reality... 50% of husbands do not discuss the distribution of time with their wives. (50% do.)
64% of first wives found that their husbands did not follow the arranged schedule.
42.5% of second wives and 77% of the first wife's children are unhappy with the arrangements.

#6
People say... Children do not mind their fathers being polygamous.

In reality... 87% of children interviewed find that polygamy has negatively affected their psychological wellbeing. Some fathers did not know to which wife a child belonged to. Some did not know the names, ages or birthdays of all of their children!
92% of children oppose polygamy because of their own experiences.

#7
People say... Polygamy brings happiness to husbands.

In reality... Husbands admit they suffer emotional stress due to time constraints, financial burdens and complaints from their wives and children.
47% of husbands work overtime and take on extra jobs.
50% admit that taking turns between houses is exhausting.

#8
People say... Malaysia's sharia family laws are fair in dealing with polygamy and family matters.

In reality... The laws are only ideal in theory; enforcement is extremely weak.
60% of first wives were not summoned to the Shariah Court to give their testimony on their husband's eligibility and capabilities for polygamy, before the judge granted a second marriage.
40% of polygamous marriages took place outside the country, mostly at the Thai border.
32% of those marriages did not register their marriages in Malaysia, thus neglecting the legal rights of the new wife and her children.

The Islamic Family Law Act 1984 states the requirements for a proposed [polygamous] marriage:

1. It must be both appropriate and necessary
2. Husband must be financially capable
3. Husband will treat all co-wives equally
4. It will not cause darar sharie (harm) to the existing wife/wives
5. It will not directly or indirectly lower the standard of living of existing wife/wives

However, the 1984 Act was amended in 1994. Husbands now no longer have to ensure that the standard of living of existing wife/wives remain the same (See #5 above).

In 2005, the 1984 Act was amended again to make polygamy easier for men. The proposed marriage only has to be appropriate OR necessary (See #1 above).

The 1984 requirements must be reinstated and strictly enforced. Polygamy should not bring happiness to only one party. The purpose of marriage is to create happiness between two people who love and feel compassion for one another (Quran 30:21).

And you will never be able to be equal between wives, even if you should strive [to do so]. So do not incline completely and leave another hanging. And if you amend and fear Allah - then indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. (Quran 4:129)

All data in this video was obtained from 'Impak poligami atas keluarga Muslim di semenanjung Malaysia' (2007-2012) [Impact of polygamy on Muslim families in Malaysia], a research collaboration between SIS and researchers from The National University of Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia Science University (USM) and Malaya University (UM).

Circumcision: Choice Not Coercion

This post was originally published on Aquila Style on 25 Nov 2013

--

Circumcision keeps a man clean, neat and healthy, right? As it turns out, however, not every guy who was circumcised at a young age is happy with what he’s got left. These stories of regret (and anger) surface sporadically from two communities that routinely circumcise newborn or young boys for religious reasons (Muslims and Jews),[i] as well as from a country that does it for primarily health reasons (the United States).

Discussions by Muslims around circumcision usually centre around male circumcision. This is perhaps not surprising, since in many Muslim communities (Indonesia, Turkey and Morocco, for example) a huge party or feast is organised around the boy who is soon to be a man. In Singapore, it used to be the norm to circumcise a boy just before puberty (a tradition carried over from Javanese migrants) and have a big celebration. This norm has lost favour over having the procedure done discreetly at younger and younger ages, sometimes before the baby has even left the hospital at a day old.

But what is the difference between male and female circumcision? Although female circumcision might be more accurately called female genital cutting since it ranges from a prick on the clitoral hood to a complete removal of the clitoris and inner labia,[ii] I retain the term “circumcision” because in many Muslim communities it is referred to with the same word, sunat or khitan, as male circumcision. Just like female circumcision, there are different types of male circumcision done at different times (newborn, toddler, prepubescence) and for different reasons (aesthetics, phimosis, infection, religious tradition).

In this article I refer only to non-therapeutic (ie, done without medical reasons) circumcision done on boys and girls before they reach the age of majority (ie, ranging from newborns to teenagers).

Religious justifications

The religious sources often cited to justify male circumcision are also the same ones used to justify female circumcision. These sources include a verse from the Qur’an accompanied by two hadith, as the verse alone does not exactly refer to the act of circumcision.

The Qur’anic verse often quoted is 3:95, which tells us to follow in the millah, or the way of Prophet Abraham (the verse later explains that we are to follow his monotheistic beliefs). The two most cited hadith are one that reports that Prophet Abraham circumcised himself at the age of 80,[iii] and another that includes circumcision as one of “five acts of fitra”[iv] (but is the only irreversible act among the other four acts of personal hygiene).
The four other acts of personal hygiene are removing pubic hair, plucking or shaving the armpit hair, trimming the moustache, and clipping the nails.

Muslims who are against female circumcision also use the same hadith to justify why girls should not be cut. For example, a representative of the Egyptian mufti has stated that female circumcision has only social roots, not religious ones.[v]

It is also important to point out that circumcision is seen as a purely religious topic (sometimes explained together with health reasons), and anyone who attempts to discuss this topic will have their authority questioned. In other words, unless you’re a (male) Islamic scholar, it’s going to be difficult to be taken seriously.

Dr Sami Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, a Palestinian-American lawyer, has written extensively on this topic, pondering the question of why discussions around circumcision remain gendered. He argues that the texts used to promote circumcision among Muslims (which are virtually always the same) are in fact gender neutral, making the issue more about political agendas rather than religion.[vi]

Circumcision is seen as harmless, or even beneficial in many Muslim communities

Both male and female circumcision cut parts of the genital organ that have similar roles; both the male foreskin and the female clitoral hood serve to protect a spot on the human body with the highest concentration of nerves. Each area also plays an important part in sexual arousal and satisfaction: the male glans and the female clitoris. Both procedures also privilege the parents’ religious identity over the child’s capacity to shape their own future.

However, news of female circumcision, especially when coming from the so-called “barbaric” Muslim world,[vii] is more apt to make headlines – especially when something has gone wrong.[viii] Botched male circumcisions, though, hardly make the mainstream news, even though there are often reports of a boy dying from complications from their non-therapeutic circumcision.[ix]

Underlying assumptions

But I don’t want to compare the degree and extent of harm being done to boys and girls all over the world. Such comparisons often lead to defensive attitudes, because one’s cultural and religious identity becomes encapsulated in the tradition of circumcision, which is then pitted against modernity, Western international organisations, or other cultures.

Arguments about the physical harm done to boys and girls may also not convince everyone, because the procedure is seen as harmless, or even beneficial in many Muslim communities. That many baby boys cry only shortly after the procedure is interpreted as sign of little or no pain (and the procedure’s harmlessness); however, medical studies show that it is a sign of neurological shutdown from severe shock.[x] For many prepubescent boys, it is a rite of passage or a chance to feel like a “tough hero”.[xi] For girls, however, the belief is quite different: they need to be purified or else they will become “wild”.[xii]

Religious and health arguments obscure the more important issues of giving consent, and imposing control

Religious or health reasons also reveal our own assumptions about our body as God’s creation. God tells us that we were created in “the best of moulds” (95:4). But proponents of circumcision believe that all foreskins – not only those in need of medical attention – are inherently impure, no matter how much physical or spiritual purification is done. The only solution is to permanently remove it. What does it say about our belief in God if we think we are created imperfect and thus in need of a corrective procedure?

Consent and control

I think that religious and health arguments obscure the more important issues of giving consent, and imposing control over a child’s body. I don’t doubt that parents wish the best for their children, and that they are always looking out for their children’s best moral and physical interests. However, it is one thing to dress a child in a kufi or hijab, but quite another to irreversibly change their body without any medical reasons. We might recoil in horror to see a toddler seemingly being given a tattoo,[xiii] but how do we react to a toddler being circumcised?

I will not circumcise my son when he is a day old, a month old, or even 10 years old. It’s not because I am discarding a sunnah or tradition; it’s because I see circumcision as an optional act that a fully cognisant adult should undertake if she or he believes that it will help him or her become a better Muslim. By not circumcising my child before he can fully understand what it means to be a Muslim, I am leaving the way open for him to choose what he wants to do – because as parents we can only guide but we cannot force our children to believe (11:42-43). I want to raise him to have good values, and I’m not sure what kind of values a physical act like circumcision will impart.

Men are allowed to be scared, and it doesn’t make them any less Muslim

There are actually many Muslim men walking around with perfectly clean, intact penises. Just like women (cut or not), they must regularly wash themselves to keep clean, for hygiene is a part of everyday life. When people argue about the obligatory nature of male circumcision, they are often not talking about grown men. In fact, there is much leeway when it comes to the circumcision of adult men – acknowledging their fear or uncertainty.[xiv] Men are allowed to be scared, and it doesn’t make them any less Muslim.

There are Muslim women and men who have chosen circumcision for their own conscience and belief. I fully support their ability and right to decide for themselves – just as I support those who decide as adults not to do so, for whatever reason, because there is no compulsion in religion (2:256).

As for children who are supposed to be under our protection, I pray that we can support their right as Muslims to choose too – just like Prophet Abraham was allowed to choose to believe.

References

[i] See for example, ‘A young Singaporean Muslim: I am now against circumcision’ available here

[ii] ‘Classification of female genital mutilation’, World Health Organisation, available here 

[iii] Narrated by Abu Huraira, in Bukhari, available here

[iv] Narrated by Abu Huraira, in Muslim, available here

[v] ‘Mufti’s deputy reiterates: Female circumcision prohibited by religion’, Egypt Independent, 23 Jun 2013, available here

[vi] See for example, the article ‘No distinction between male and female circumcision’ here or the book Legitimisation of Male and Female Circumcision here

[vii] Rebecca Steinfeld, ‘Like FGM, cut foreskins should be a feminist issue’, The Conversation, 18 Nov 2013, available here

[viii] Sara C Nelson, ‘Soher Ebrahim Egyptian girl, 13, dies after illegal female genital mutilation’, 10 Jun 2013, available here

[ix] For example, seven botched circumcisions in Saudi Arabia caused injuries and hospitalisation, available here. See also the hospitalisation of a three-year-old Indonesian boy with haemophilia here, and the deaths of two Indian toddlers here

[x] See medical studies by Brady-Fryer, Wiebe and Lander (2004) available here, or Williamson and Evans (1986) available here

[xi] Shahnawaz Abdul Hamid, ‘Circumcision in Islam: a meaningless tradition worth discarding?”, Muzlimbuzz.sg, 11 Nov 2013, available here

[xii] Sya Taha, ‘A tiny cut: female circumcision in Southeast Asia’, The Islamic Monthly, 12 Mar 2013, available here

[xiii] Maria Vultaggio, ‘’Tattoo forced on toddler by mother’ video goes viral; but is it a hoax?’, International Business Times, 29 Jan 2013, available here

[xiv] See sources cited in ‘Considering converting: is it necessary to be circumcised?’, available here

Entrenching Stigma: Malaysia’s Cross-Dressing Law

This post was originally published on Muslimah Media Watch on 8 Jan 2014 

Source

2013 ended with another decision, somewhere in the world, to entrench the persecution and ostracisation of a minority group. I’m referring to a new syariah law introduced by the Pahang Islamic Religious and Malay Customs Council (MUIP) in early December 2013, which would imprison for a maximum of one year or fine up to RM1000 (USD 304) a man who dresses like a woman, or a woman who dresses like a man.

The deputy director of the Pahang Islamic Religious Department (JAIP) added that the ruling aimed to “discourage such activities from being rampant” because existing systems of detention and advice are ineffective. In local news, the main reason for prosecuting “cross-dressers” is because they create the “tendency to sway the community towards immorality“. The mufti of Pahang explained further:

“Usually these mak nyah, they are men resembling women and what is their aim of appearing like women? Because they want to tempt other men. This means that they are inviting others to immorality.” [translated from Malay]

A proposal for a similar law in the neighbouring state of Negeri Sembilan waspreviously challenged in 2012 by four transgender men, but was rejected by the federal court. The lawyer who represented these men saw this decision as a “dangerous precedent… effectively saying that state-enacted Islamic law overrides fundamental liberties.” Negeri Sembilan has been enforcing the RM1000 fines for “cross-dressing” that Pahang has just newly enacted.

In the Malay-language news, the terms translated as “cross-dressers” are mak nyah and pengkid (an umbrella term referring to women imitating men; also includes lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered men).

Although the transgender community in Malaysia is a very small minority and hardly constitutes any kind of significant political coalition, in the local news they are spoken of as a threat to other men and women, especially by getting “braver” at openly showing their identity. This is because of the “confusion” that they create about notions of masculinity and femininity.

The transgender community is spoken of as a “social problem”, with the National Fatwa Council even squarely banning the phenomenon of pengkid, calling them haram back in 2008. In May 2013 the mufti office of Selangor in charge of matters pertaining to haj also stated that it was haram for pengkid to go for haj because neither men nor women would want to share rooms with them (which is just a terribly confusing problem).

One worry is the lack of definition surrounding cross-dressing. For a law that allows the religious police to indiscriminately arrest Muslims on the streets of Pahang based on their own perception of cross-dressing, for such an offence, held as equal to other offences such as khalwat (close proximity), consuming alcohol and not fasting during Ramadan, the focus seems to be on how effectively it can be enforced, instead of the purpose it serves or the implications it has on a minority group.

Women’s Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah expressed her doubts about the enforcement and purpose of the cross-dressing law.

“Modern attire is eclectic in nature and many women these days wear trousers and sport short hair. How do we even define what cross-dressing means? [...] There is also the question as to why we are focusing on behaviour that is basically harmless. Cross-dressing is not about hurting other people or taking property from anyone. It’s a personal choice.”

Another issue is that the religious authorities seem to want to calm any backlash with the reassurance that these laws only apply to Muslims. However, we have seen in previous incidents that the conflation of the ethnic grouping Malays with Islam, in Malaysian law, has resulted in the restriction of the freedom of expression and religion for certain people in Malaysia.

In response to NGOs, activists and even syariah lawyers who call this law a violation of basic human rights, the mufti gives his own dose of logic:

“We have to understand. Mankind with God’s laws, Allah knows better. If we say that people are better than God, that’s shirk. Our Prophet said that Allah curses men that resemble women and women that resemble men, we have to agree. If we don’t, this means we don’t believe in God, don’t believe in Allah’s laws.” [translated from Malay]

In the end, what will be the outcome of such a law, with the resources needed to enforce it being better off allocated to the needy, according to a syariah lawyer. Thilaga Sulathireh of the NGO Justice for Sisters, concludes that it will only reinforce “stigma, discrimination and violence towards the transgender community and gender non-conforming individuals“, especially by placing them in opposition to Islam.

“The transgender community has suffered violence in the past due to state prosecution. Instead of prosecuting them, it is the state’s duty to protect and promote the rights of all, regardless of one’s gender identity and expression. When the stance of the government is that individuals who ‘cross dress’ are criminals, this oppression will shut down access to their other rights – for example, recognition of gender which directly affects their access to healthcare and employment.”

It is extremely disheartening to see so many state resources being put towards the prosecution of an already marginalised group, using Islam as a reason for such oppression. Despite this, I hope that people will continue to speak truth to power against such authorities who claim to speak in the name of God.

Why women shouldn't lead prayer Part I: On knowledge

Welcome to the first post (of 3) on why women shouldn't lead prayer. More information behind this post here.

Source

This post is not giving arguments explaining why women should not lead prayer. But it's also not going to give arguments about why women should lead prayer. What this post does however, is break down some of the more abstract assumptions behind this article entitled 'Dr. Amina Wadud and the Progressive Muslims: Some Reflections on Woman-Led Prayer' written by Zaynab Ansari, an article which in fact gives arguments for why women should not lead prayer (you wouldn't have guessed that by the word 'reflections' in the title, right?).

1. Quran = Sacred law = Sharia of Allah = Sharia law.
2. Hadith should be accepted at face value, especially those with certain names in its transmission.
3. Feminist scholars have biases, but male scholars are unbiased.
4. Most Sunni and Shia scholars agree that a woman cannot be imam. Two scholars said it was possible under certain conditions. Majority opinion wins.
5. Western scientists, Western gender theorists, Western feminists exist. They are inferior to Muslim scholars.
6. Shari' conceptions of gender identity exist. These are the 'true' forms of gender identity.

Instead of addressing the list of 14 assumptions chronologically, I've categorised them broadly by topic. This post will address 6 assumptions related to the nature of knowledge (a.k.a 'epistemology') in the most straightforward terms as possible (33:70): what is considered knowledge, where does it come from, and who is allowed to receive knowledge.

1. Quran = Sacred law = Sharia of Allah = Sharia law.

Many of the Progressives' ideologues envision a wholesale reformulation of Sacred Law. This divine gift of guidance has withstood the test of time immemorial. It is sheer folly for any Muslim to claim the right to alter the Sharia of Allah.

Clearly, Dr. Wadud approaches the Qur'an from a vantage point that conflicts with the well-established methodology of Islamic scholarship and exegesis of the Qur'an. Mainstream Sunni and Shi'i scholars alike accept the principles of the universality, immutability, and applicability of the Qur'an's edicts. Saying yes to the Qur'an is very much at the core of Muslim faith.

"When I say "no" it is not the integrity of the literal text, it is to the implementation of some practices which is a 14 centuries long debate...with no ONE having the final word. That belongs only to Allah and Allahu A'lam." - A. Wadud

The author rightly quotes Wadud's argument, which states that she accepts the Quran fully as the word of God. For most people who consider themselves Muslim, this is usually the 'core' of their faith as well. The difference here is that the author conflates the Quran, a divine text from God, with sharia law as it is commonly understood today: a series of specific and general principles from the Qur'an, elaborations from hadith, then all the different interpretations as elaborated by (male) scholars of fiqh (jurisprudence) through qiyas (analogy) and ijma (consensus), and finally, colonial civil law (often, British or French). What passes for shari'a law in many postcolonial countries is simply colonial laws which did not contradict the principles of shari'a. What passes for shari'a law in Malaysia is not what passes for shari'a law in Egypt.

The word shari'a appears in the Quran only 5 times, in 4 different forms. The root, sh-r-'a connotes a clear or visible path or law. God ordained for us a way of living that was the same for all other prophets before us (42:13, 42:21, 45:18), but there were certain laws that are specific to each group (5:48). The principles of shari'a (e.g. social justice, the right to a family) are timeless, but the models are limited. Some rulings were created in the 7th century, some rulings are from the traditional laws of the land (e.g. stoning being an ancient practice) which are brought over to other countries under the guise of it being Islamic (e.g. stoning introduced to Aceh).

Shari'a may also be understood as a bottom-up approach: people to behave in ways that embody the Qur'an, how God wants us to be. Shari'a, as the law of God, does not exist when there is not enough physical and ideological space for everyone (17:70, 58:11), it does not exist when those who are marginalised do not receive the help they need (4:36), it does not exist when people who believe in God find themselves threatened and insulted (49:11-12); but it exists when everyone starts doing good. (More on shari'a here).

In short: God's law is sacred, as written in the Quran. Any interpretation, elaboration and codification of God's laws by people is necessarily contextual, subject to flaws, and may change for different societies in different times.

2. Hadith should be accepted at face value, especially those with certain names in its transmission.

Any hadith that comes to us through these two Imams cannot be disregarded. Centuries ago, hadith experts, like Bukhari and Muslim, established a rigorous methodology for hadith scholarship that contemporary scholars simply cannot replicate...Who are we to disqualify their immense achievements by arbitrarily rejecting and accepting hadith?

Hadith, by nature of being written by people, are bound to be subject to human biases based on their social and geographical context. The mainstream majority of Muslims would say that the speech of the Prophet was also divine, and cite 53:4 from the Quran. The reasoning then goes, the words of the Prophet help to explain the Quran i.e. hadith help to explain the Quran.

However, I have always had two issues with this reasoning. One is that much of the hadith literature is a compilation from a few scholars who referred to among themselves (kind of like academics today who only quote each other). Two, believing that all the Prophet's words are divinely inspired is different from believing that what the hadith scholars wrote down is correct, since there is a long chain of transmission across hundreds of years. Questioning this usually leads to the argument that the people in this chain of transmission were exquisitely upright in character, and the scribes had otherworldly memory powers and intelligence. But anything written by people has its shortcomings and requires critical study. (A balanced study of hadith here, with a summary of its possible forgeries here.)

Alternatively, you may choose to see the Quran as being complete and with enough details for you to live an upright life (6:114, 16:89). Nevertheless, any human interpretation has its shortcomings.

In short: Hadith is one such example of human interpretation, elaboration and codification of God's laws. As a human text, it has its strengths and limitations and should not be accepted without some critical thinking.

3. Feminist scholars have biases, but male scholars are unbiased.

Approaching the Qur'an from a feminist perspective, Dr. Wadud is not exempt from her own biases.

Since you've made it this far, you will probably see what's wrong with this sentence. All humans are subject to bias because we do not have infinite knowledge, this includes scholars of jurisprudence, no matter how smart they were. It's not about women scholars having different biases from male scholars, but also, richer scholars (e.g. funded by the ruling powers) having different biases from poorer (or independent) scholars, Persian scholars having different biases from Greek scholars. Every aspect of social identity matters, not just gender.

A feminist perspective of the Quran assumes that dominant interpretations today are pro-men and pro-male interests. Saying that men are allowed to (lightly) beat their wives with the aim of humiliation is one of the best examples of this. There are plenty of male scholars who also come up with feminist perspectives of verses in the Quran: Edip Yuksel, Farouk Peru, Shabbir Ahmed, to name a few.

This assumption that men are neutral and rational while women are emotional actually comes from the Renaissance, and there is no Quranic argument that supports such an intellectual division between male and female scholars.

They believe that Islam needs to be freed from centuries of male-dominated, conservative scholarship to adequately address issues of human rights and gender equality. While this idea might appeal to some, it certainly has its flaws.

I don't see anything wrong with injecting new interpretations into society. Today we are too concerned with following rules from certain names, without actually thinking for ourselves on what they mean to us. For every person with knowledge, there is another one with more knowledge, and we should always seek more knowledge (17:26, 20:114). How can we do this if we shut down certain arguments just because they don't fit with what we have always considered to be true?

In short: This assumption has no basis in the Quran. Judging scholars by their gender is an ad hominem fallacy. (And actually sort of childish, no?)

4. Most Sunni and Shia scholars agree that a woman cannot be imam. Two scholars said it was possible under certain conditions. Majority opinion wins.

Furthermore, the vast majority of Sunni and Shi'i scholars are agreed that women are not permitted to lead men in prayer. One can assume, as the Progressives have, that these men simply were not as enlightened as we are or were influenced by existing gender prejudice in their societies. On the other hand, one can also give these scholars the benefit of the doubt instead of impugning to them base motives of male prejudice. 

'Male prejudice' is not a judgmental phrase. It simply means that by virtue of being a man, there are certain aspects of knowledge that cannot be known. For example, when a Muslim man enters any mosque in the world, as long as he is wearing the minimum coverage, he can enter by the front entrance, sit anywhere in the prayer hall, and not have an inkling of worry that he might be rebuked. In contrast, not every mosque in the world is open to Muslim women, and even if so, she may not be able to enter by the front gate, may have to search for the separate space which is often smaller and dirtier, and at any time might be scolded for not being covered sufficiently or being in the wrong area. Most Muslim men, if they are not told about women's experiences, may never be aware of this.

Today's society is not more or less enlightened than previous societies. Scientific progress can tell you that girls are no worse than boys (and so don't kill them!), but scientific progress can also allow you to check the sex of the baby by ultrasound and abort it instead of killing it when it's born. 

I believe that if they had been aware of an established Prophetic precedent for female imamate, then they would have supported it unanimously. As it were, only a few scholars, such as Imam Abi Thaur and Imam Muzani, allowed female prayer leaders. This allowance was not blanket permission for women to lead men in prayer, but contingent on certain circumstances, the details of which were not transmitted with the same clarity as the majority consensus.

Fiqh, or jurisprudence, was never meant to close down debate. The role of these scholars were to elaborate on the general principles in the Quran, for their own time and society. In their time, their opinions co-existed with each other, and they never said to create a madhhab or school of thought based on their name. Much of why their opinions are dominant in certain parts of the world (e.g. Shafi'i in Southeast Asia, Maliki in Northern Africa) have a lot more to do with political power, trade and shifting alliances.

There is a Prophetic precedence for a woman leading prayer: Nafisa or Umm Waraqa bint Abdullah. And a minority opinion in the Hanbali school of thought permits women to lead women and mixed-congregations in prayer. Like all human interpretations, one can choose to follow a scholar or not. The problem here is that the author has placed her intellectual trust in the majority of scholars, and did not even give minority scholars the space for their arguments. How scholars gain followers also depends a lot on power.

In short: Fiqh aimed to provide different opinions on an issue, with the same objective. A dominant idea has a lot more to do with power, and not because it's necessarily right. Cases in point: sects, neo-liberalism, modernity.

5. Western scientists, Western gender theorists, Western feminists exist. They are inferior to Muslim scholars.

Shaykh Abdal-Hakim Murad, in his writings on Islam and gender, contends that certain Western scientists, gender theorists, and even feminists, like Germaine Greer, are coming to realisations about gender that are highly reminiscent of Shari' conceptions of gender identity.

This assumption indicates a worldview that separates knowledge from the West from knowledge from the East/Islamic world. And yet, scholars like the author often refer to an Islamic Golden Age (mid-8th to 13th century). During this time, everything that was awesome about Islam happened, like the invention of the water wheel, the astrolabes, the writing of the comprehensive medical Canon -- everything that religious teachers today hark to, to motivate us into doing something useful as Muslims.

But what was unique about that time was the exchange of knowledge from the East and the West (if we must use these terms, for simplicity). Much of Greek philosophy was influenced by Muslim scholars. Scholars traveled far and wide to seek knowledge, translate books and learn from each other. They moved across different regions; there were Muslim scholars from and in the West (as there are today!)

Today, what is often called 'the West' is anything that is considered threatening to the ideas in conservative mainstream Islam, and is often a label that is applied accordingly. Don't like scholars that argue that femininity and masculinity are constructed by society? "Western gender theorist" Scholars that think women have bodily autonomy? "Western feminist".

This is especially clear because the author decides to mention Germaine Greer, a "Western feminist" whom she agrees with, because she thinks men and women are fundamentally different. Despite this, Greer and other 'Western' scholars are only accepted when they "realise" what men and women are really like (as pushed by mainstream Islam).

In short: West and East/Islam is a false dichotomy. All knowledges are valuable, and should not be put on a hierarchy because this prevents you from using your brain.

6. Shari' conceptions of gender identity exist. These are the 'true' forms of gender identity.

Shaykh Abdal-Hakim Murad, in his writings on Islam and gender, contends that certain Western scientists, gender theorists, and even feminists, like Germaine Greer, are coming to realisations about gender that are highly reminiscent of Shari' conceptions of gender identity.

Firstly, I think the author meant gender expression (how women and men should behave), not identity (what gender you conceive of yourself), because then she would to accept that women who have the sense of being a man and behaves like a man, are in fact men.

The author thinks that men and women are fundamentally different from each other, according to shari'a. Since we already saw that sharia is a broad collection of principles, there is in fact no way of knowing what the 'true' conceptions of 'gender identity' are. There is no such thing as a shari'a-compliant gender identity. The closest idea I can think of is that women can give birth and nurse (2:233, 65:6) and since men earn more and have more privilege in global patriarchy, they should financially support women (4:34).

Perhaps she means modesty? But this applies to both men and women (24:30-31). Or perhaps she means that women should know they have to pray in the back or in another room? Or that all men should be leaders? Or that all men have high sex drives and therefore harassment and polygamy is natural?

Greer thinks that men and women are fundamentally different, because of biological differences. Functions of the female body determine women's actions and the male body determine's men's actions. Needless to say, this is extremely reductive and diminishes the complex desires and actions of women all over the world, depending on their religion, ethnicity, class, and so on. Today, many Muslim women also contribute to the household. Muslim men are also playing roles as house-husbands or being the primary caregiver at home, and there is nothing to indicate that this goes against the laws of nature.

While women can give birth, not all women are able to, and so birth doesn't make one a woman. Likewise, while men can have a high sex drive, expressing this drive depends on how a man is brought up, and doesn't excuse harassment or rape.

In short: There is no such thing as a 'shari' conception of gender identity'. Being a woman or a man varies across and within societies.
--

Read next Part II: On Rules and Rituals!

Female Circumcision in South East Asia

This post was first published in the Islamic Monthly.

--

I am a Muslim of Malay ethnicity, who was born in Singapore, where Malays are an ethnic and religious minority today, and lived there until I was 24 years old. The Malays, of whom 99 percent are Muslim, are the indigenous people of Singapore and the Malay archipelago. Until the arrival of the British colonizers in the early nineteenth century, this area (which covers what is south Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and south  Philippines today) shared many cultural and linguistic similarities.

When I was about six years old and attending a kenduri, or ritual feast, for two male cousins who had just been circumcised, I whispered to my mother, “Are girls circumcised too?” Growing up in Singapore in the 1990s, boys were commonly circumcised before puberty (around eight or nine) – making it seem like a rite of passage into adulthood. The six year-old me observed the fuss and attention they got: they were not allowed to eat certain foods, they could only bear to wear a kain sarong for up to two weeks due to the pain, and had to be fanned at night to keep the wounds dry. These ritual feasts to celebrate a boy’s circumcision are less common today, partly due to the increasing use of doctors to carry out circumcision, and usually on infants a few weeks old.

My mother explained to me girls were indeed circumcised, and that sunat perempuan (Malay for ‘female’ sunnah, or ‘tradition’) involved “a tiny cut”, without giving any more details. At that age, it didn’t occur to me to ask if any women I knew had been cut, because there were never any ritual feasts. Later, I would discover that this female genital cutting, as it happened historically and today, has undergone various changes and yet, many aspects of this ritual remained the same.

When I asked my mother again recently, she revealed that she and her seven sisters had all undergonesunat. In Singapore in the 1940s, sunat involved cutting off a piece of a girl’s prepuce or clitoral hood, making it flat instead of naturally covering the top of the clitoris. By the time my sister was born in the 1980s, it was more common to practice a symbolic form of sunat in the form of scraping of the prepuce using a penknife or scissors.

Both of these procedures had been done by a mak bidan, or post-partum midwife, whose role was to help mothers with bathing and nursing their babies, and also get back into shape after a natural birth with the use of tummy wraps, herbal drinks, herbal applications, massage, and bathing of the newborn baby. The mak bidan had performed the sunat after bathing my sister, who was then just a week old.

My mother was too young to remember when she had her own sunat done, guessing it was probably when she was a few weeks old. During her childhood, undergoing sunat was a big deal for both girls and boys, but only boys enjoyed social celebrations in the form of ritual feasts and processions. In contrast, sunat perempuan was carried out by the midwife, often in the presence of only the mother, quickly and without much fuss. When my mother tried to ask her own mother any questions or to attend the procedure, she was dismissed as being mentel, or excessively curious in matters of sexuality.

The term female genital mutilation (FGM) is considered by its supporters to be a negative judgment of the act. The World Health Organisation has four classifications of FGM, with first and final category describing the kind of procedures going on in Southeast Asia.[i] Others use the term ‘female circumcision’ (FC) or ‘female genital cutting’ (FGC) to maintain a sense of neutrality. However, I feel that the term ‘female circumcision’ is also not technically accurate, because circumcision means ‘to cut around’, which is overwhelmingly the method of male foreskin removal.

To remain faithful to the point of reference, which is Southeast Asia, I will use the term FGC and sunatperempuan and interchangeably to refer to a variety of invasive procedures such as cutting off a small piece of the highest part of the clitoral hood (also known as the prepuce or foreskin), drawing blood by scraping or pricking, as well as non-invasive procedures such like spreading blood or spreading antiseptic on the area.

Symbolic sunat perempuan such as cutting a peeled turmeric root placed over the clitoris, spreading chicken blood onto the clitoris, or cleansing with antiseptic and then blowing over the area, are significant and the first two rituals were estimated by Basilica Putranti to make up half of all incidents in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2002. These procedures were often done on girls as they reached puberty, though there was a trend by the 1980s to lower the age to a few weeks old.[ii]

How did FGCbegin in the region?

While there is a much debate about FGC as experienced in the African continent, the literature on the subject generally disregards the ritual as practiced in Southeast Asia. Some scholars contend that when Islam spread to Southeast Asia in the 13^th century, female cutting was also introduced to the region. However, there exists scarce literature on the beginnings of FGC in this area. The most informative source on the incidence of FGC in Southeast Asia can be found in a chapter of a recent anthology about Muslim women’s rights. The chapter details the history of the practice based on local reports dating from the colonial Dutch East Indies and contemporary sociological and anthropological research.[iii]

There exists no convincing evidence that any form of FGC predated the spread of Islam to the region. In fact,, Hindu and Buddhist beliefs prevailed in Southeast Asia before Islam and the followers of both  faiths reject both male and female circumcision. Further, some 19^th century syncretist Muslims in Java rejected FGC as well, considering it an ‘Arab custom’. However, most of the population declared it to be optional. The royal families of Java also employed a non-Arabic word for FGC such as kres ortetesan (‘pricking’). Among the orthodox Muslims, the term sunat perempuan or khitan perempuan(‘female circumcision’) is more commonly used, until today. [iv]

What is happening today?

Photographs taken by Stephanie Sinclair in 2006 of a mass sunat perempuan ceremony in Bandung, Indonesia, were published in 2008 and surfaced again late last year, making public a ritual that usually takes place behind closed doors.[v] Her pictures show girls ranging from nine months to nine years of age undergoing the ritual as done by a team of middle-aged women. The sunat, as described, involved cutting of a piece of the clitoral hood (the size of a “nail clipping”) using a sterilised pair of scissors. Sinclair had attended a ceremony organized and sponsored by Yayasan Assalaam Bandung, a foundation that provides Islamic education and social welfare services and sees itself as an open, inclusive, moderate, and dynamic organisation.[vi]

In Malaysia, a university survey of 1000 respondents found that over 90 percent of Muslim women reported being circumcised.[vii] A study in Kelantan found that all of the women in the labour ward had undergone FGC.[viii] In Indonesia, the figure is upwards of 86 percent, with 90 percent of adults supporting it.[ix] In her study of southern Thailand, Claudia Merli applies the same description to the province of Satun, because of cultural and regional proximity to Malaysia and Indonesia.[x] However, there have been no surveys done in Singapore. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the incidence today is much lower than in Malaysia or Indonesia.

During my mother’s childhood, much mystery surrounded the practice, which was passed down the generations, quietly and without protest. It was “just tradition”. In south Thailand, the bidan has the “exclusive authority to perform female circumcision and reject the idea of this operation ever passing into the hands of medical personnel” for physical and ritual/religious reasons.[xi] In Indonesia, traditional circumcisers say they “learn the practice from other women during several years of apprenticing.”[xii] Nevertheless, more and more doctors are performing FGC today.

Various reasons are offered for female circumcision, for example, to keep “clean”; to “purify the genitals and bestow gender identity”; to “control women’s sexual urges”; because women can only be beautiful if chaste; to help them not be “as wild”;  to make them “more beautiful in the eyes of their husband”; or to make the latter “more excited in bed”.[xiii] In Singapore, some of the older generations point out that the reason that some young women are “wild” today is because they are not circumcised. Others also argue that there is neither much harm nor pain because of the very small amount of flesh that is removed (described as the size of a nail clipping, a quarter-grain of rice, a guava seed, a bean, the tip of a leaf, or the head of a needle)[xiv]. They also stress the importance of supposedly avoiding the clitoris. A midwife known for cutting away “too much” flesh might be boycotted:

She had discussed the topic of sunat with a man well versed in Islamic law who had not let his own daughter be circumcised, claiming that the practice is neither necessary nor compulsory because it is not mentioned in the Koran. Despite this conversation, Wati and her husband decided to follow the local tradition, with a sense of pressure coming from other villagers, whose disapproval they wanted to avoid. The local bidan was not taken on as she was ill-famed for cutting away “too much,” some even said the whole clitoris. Another bidan was summoned from another location.[xv]

Religious opinions

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in Southeast Asia follow the Shafii school of law, which declares FGC as wajib, or obligatory. In contrast, the other three Sunni schools, together with the Shia schools, consider FGC a sunnah or a recommended act. Just like male circumcision, there is no mention of it in the Quran. The form of FGC taking place in Southeast Asia seems to follow this general and gender-neutral rule from al-Nawawi to remove the prepuce at a young age, but also at an older age if it causes no ‘harm’.[xvi] This ruling is found in his chapter on taharah or purity, indicating that the concern was for the cleanliness of the genitals, especially the area under the prepuce, and consequent validity of acts of worship. Indeed, about half of the reasons mentioned above by midwives and parents for the practice reflects a concern for hygiene.

With regards to hadith, or Prophetic sayings, there is much debate on which are considered authentic, and therefore authoritative enough to be taken as a source of law. The most commonly-cited hadith(here) mentioning circumcision has been used to both promote and discourage FGC. Other hadith that mention circumcised parts (here and here) are also making a larger point about purifying one’s body after sexual intercourse, but not necessarily ordaining circumcision. Other hadith whose authenticity cannot be confirmed variously urge to not “cut deeply”, “abuse”, “cut into”, or “exceed the limit”, but instead to “trim”, “reduce the size of the clitoris”, or to “cut off only the foreskin”.

In short, there is no fully authentic text in which the Prophet Mohammad required or recommended the circumcision of women any more than the circumcision of men. There may have been FGC in the Prophet’s society, but there was no equivocal ban on it. This type of minimal FGC as practised in Southeast Asia has also been identified as the ‘mild’ type of cutting found in early Islamic societies, which was aimed to protect women’s “dignity and well-being” or make her “honourable”. Thus, it is dangerously framed as the ‘real’ or ‘most Islamic’ FGC. [xvii]

However, most Muslims do not make a direct link between their everyday actions and textual evidence, learning instead from our immediate forefathers the rituals, symbols, and acts that make us Muslim (or not). For example, we pray by first imitating movements from our parents or other authority figures in our lives and often only learn the significance of the words and movements when we are older. Likewise, while FGC may have started in Southeast Asia as an “Arab custom”, today it is a religious norm that parents seek for their children, because everyone else in the family or in the village has done it, for generations.

Social responses

Today, in Southeast Asian society, we are witnessing a growing trend towards institutionalising and medicalising FGC. In 2008, the Ministry of Health in Malaysia reported that 88 percent of their female staff had their daughters circumcised by doctors in the private practice.[xviii] Another study in Indonesia revealed that 65 percent of FGC was performed in hospitals.[xix] In Singapore, a woman Muslim doctor admits to “circumcising five to six patients a day”, mostly babies and prepubescent children.[xx]

In late 2006, the Ministry of Health in Indonesia banned doctors from performing the procedure based on the grounds that it was “potentially harmful”, but this ban was not enforced. Hospitals continue to offer sunat perempuan for baby girls, sometimes as part of “birth packages” which also included vaccinations and ear piercing. Yayasan Assalaam, an Islamic foundation that runs a mosque and several schools,  also links the practice to celebrating the birthday of Prophet Muhammad, and even provides incentives like money and food to parents who bring their daughters to their annualsunat ceremony.[xxi]

In Malaysia, the Fatwa Committee of Malaysia’s National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs ruled in 2009 that female circumcision, was “obligatory for Muslims but if harmful must be avoided”.[xxii] More recently, in Indonesia, the Indonesian Council of Ulema ruled in favour of female circumcision and added that although it cannot be considered mandatory, it is still “morally recommended”.[xxiii] The leader of this council however warned to avoid “excesses” in the removal or cutting of the clitoris — a position supported by the hadith mentioned earlier. A similar advice is given by the Islamic Religious Authority of Singapore on their website.[xxiv]

The trend towards medicalisation is also worrying because while it may reduce pain and struggling, it would also allow for a deeper or more severe excision – as was being promoted in a village in south Thailand by some missionaries from India.[xxv] The institutionalisation of FGC in countries with parallel laws for Muslims and non-Muslims may aggravate existing socio-religious problems, especially if fatwa have been passed to make this practice obligatory.

There are currently no active campaigns against eradicating FGC in Southeast Asia. This is perhaps due to the high acceptance of the practice in Malaysia and Indonesia for socio-religious reasons. However, in Malaysia there are studies being done and public talks hosted by research centres such as the Women’s Development Research Centre of University of Science, Malaysia (USM) and women’s rights organisations such as Sisters in Islam. AWARE, a secular women’s rights organisation in Singapore, has a web page dedicated to explaining FGC in the Singaporean context.[xxvi]

Contextualising sunat

Local explanations for female circumcision center around the lack of harm that it causes to the girl, and that it has positive benefits, which broadly fall under concerns for hygiene (keeping clean), femininity (reducing or stabilising libido, increasing attractiveness to husband) and ritual (bestowing gender identity, honour, dignity[xxvii]).

However, anecdotal evidence for the harm of FGC includes pain while passing urine, or desensitivity of the clitoris and reduced ability for sexual pleasure. Some also experience botched procedures such as an excised or split clitoris, some may suffer loss of blood, infection, or shock. Some may also face recurrent urinary tract and pelvic inflammation and infection that can cause sterility. Scar tissue, medical complications, and psychological trauma of having a procedure done without one’s consent may cause so much anxiety and anguish that a pleasant sex life can become difficult.

In any case, these explanations are situated in a web of political, social, and economic phenomena: preserving one’s Muslim identity by ensuring that the practice will continue through law and medical justification (as male circumcision has become); controlling the sexual urges of girls in the light of increasing teenage pregnancies; and the influence of Wahhabi or Salafist elements on Islam in Southeast Asia.

The target audience in this debate are not the midwives or the medical practitioners, but the attitudes of parents and schools vis-a-vis girls’ sexual and physical health and hygiene, because these parties are the ones who can either enable or prevent sunat on their children.

At the individual level, the most important issue is consent. The problem is not whether Muslim girls are being circumcised or not, but whether they are allowing these irreversible modifications to be made on their bodies. Some people may argue that it is  more beneficial to perform the procedure when children are still babies to avoid “complications, prolong[ed] pain, or embarrassment” (the exact same argument for infant male circumcision). [xxviii] But this begs the question as to why Muslim parents are “marking” their children’s bodies with “Islam” or with a procedure that has doubtful utility?

The level of acceptance of other forms of body modification like tattoos and piercings are largely dependent on dominant social paradigms which differ across countries. Most people would regard infant male circumcision or ear piercings on girl babies as normal, but not a tattoo. And yet, the most significant issue in this debate is the completeness, intelligence, and sanctity of God’s creation. Like every part of the human body, foreskins serve a specific purpose, both male and female. The underlying assumption of cleanliness and purity is that God created us with body parts that get dirty but are also absolutely possible to clean. Think of our noses, ears, mouths, and anuses. Why is the prepuce suddenly an exception?

–

Ever curious, at the age of 27, I finally asked my mother if I had been circumcised, whether physically or ritually. She said no (phew!) and explained that when I was born, the mak bidan was nowhere to be found. She had come to Singapore from Malaysia through family contacts after my sister’s birth in order to perform my mother’s post-partum birth rituals. However, she decided to return to Malaysia because she was part of a dying trade in an economically-growing Singapore. Upon learning this, I had one last question for my mother:

“Why didn’t you ensure that I was circumcised?”

“It’s a sunnah anyway, it’s not that important.”

This short exchange with my mother revealed to me the importance of parental attitudes. When done, “a tiny cut” might be dismissed as being “harmless”. But I was so glad that my mother had felt that this “tiny cut” was also equally “harmless” if not done.

Sya Taha is historically Javanese, politically Malay, and accidentally a migrant to the Netherlands whose interests include Quranic hermeneutics, gender, disability, and race in the Nusantara (Malay archipelago).

---

[i] World Health Organisation, ‘Female genital mutilation, Fact sheet N°241’ Updated February 2013, available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

[ii] Basilica Dyah Putranti (2008), ‘To Islamize, Becoming a Real Woman or Commercialized Practices? Questioning Female Genital Cutting in Indonesia’, Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration, 3(2):23-31.

[iii] William G. Clarence-Smith (2012) ‘Female Circumcision in Southeast Asia since the Coming of Islam’, p.124-146, in Chitra Raghavan and James P. Levine (eds.), Self-Determination and Women’s Rights in Muslim Societies. USA: Brandeis University Press. Available athttp://books.google.nl/books?id=QT3Tq6FfG0cC&pg=PA127&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

[iv] Clarence-Smith (2012).

[v] See Sara Corbett, ‘A Cutting Tradition’, The New York Times, 20 Jan 2008, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=slogin& and Abigail Haworth, ‘The day I saw 248 girls suffering genital mutilation’, The Guardian, 28 Nov 2012, available athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/18/female-genital-mutilation-circumcision-indonesia.

[vi] Yayasan Assalaam Bandung, ‘Vision and Mission’, available at http://assalaam-bdg.or.id/visi-misi/.

[vii] ABCNews, ‘Malaysia storm over female circumcision’, 7 Dec 2012, available athttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-07/an-malaysia-debate-over-female-circumcision/4416298

[viii] Isa A. Rahman, R. Shuib, and Othman M. Shukri (1999), ‘The practice of female circumcision among Muslims in Kelantan, Malaysia’, Reproductive Health Matters 7 (13): 137–144.

[ix] Haworth (2012).

[x] Claudia Merli (2008), ‘Sunat for girls in southern Thailand : its relation to traditional midwifery, male circumcision and other obstetrical practices’, Finnish Journal Of Ethnicity and Migration, 3(2):32-41. Available at http://dro.dur.ac.uk/5302/1/5302.pdf

[xi] Merli (2008).

[xii] Corbett (2008).

[xiii] See IRIN, ‘Indonesia: Female genital mutilation persists despite ban’, 2 Sep 2010, available athttp://www.irinnews.org/Report/90366/INDONESIA-Female-genital-mutilation-persists-despite-ban, and Corbett (2008).

[xiv] Corbett (2008).

[xv] Merli (2008).

[xvi] Shafi’ifiqh.com, ‘What is the ruling on circumcision for women?’, available athttp://www.shafiifiqh.com/category/fiqh-of-worship/taharah/circumcision/

[xvii] ‘Female Circumcision/Female Genital Cutting’, available athttp://oumabdulaziz.arabblogs.com/femalecircumcision.html

[xviii] Ministry of Health (2008), ‘Ministry Of Health Report’, Family Health and Development Division.

[xix] Maznah Dahlui, ‘The Practice of Female Circumcision in Malaysia’. Talk given at Women’s Development Research Centre (KANITA), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).

[xx] Toronto Star, ‘Muslim rite is modernised’, 16 Nov 2002, available athttp://www.courtchallenge.com/news/torstar1.html

[xxi] Haworth (2012).

[xxii] ABCNews, ‘Malaysia storm over female circumcision’, 7 Dec 2012.

[xxiii] Mathias Hariyadi, ‘Indonesian Ulema in favour of female circumcision: a “human right”’, 24 Jan 2013, available at http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Indonesian-Ulema-in-favour-of-female-circumcision:-a-human-right-26948.html

[xxiv] Islamic Religious Authority Singapore (MUIS), ‘Frequent Asked Questions: Is circumcision compulsory for muslimah?’, available at http://www.muis.gov.sg/cms/oomweb/oom_faq.aspx?id=15104

[xxv] Merli (2008).

[xxvi] Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), ‘Female Circumcision’, available atwww.aware.org.sg/information/female-circumcision/

[xxvii] Mardiana Abu Bakar, ‘Female Circumcision: A Viewpoint’. The Straits Times, 30 Oct 1994, available at: http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_circumcision.htm

[xxviii] Islamic Religious Authority Singapore (MUIS), ‘Frequent Asked Questions: Is circumcision compulsory for muslimah?’.