April 30, 2012
US Pediatric Doctor Favors Female CircumcisionBy Yori Yanover
Dr. Hatem al-Haj, PhD, MD, a senior committee member of the Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), has recently published a 41-page Arabic-language paper titled “Circumcision of Girls: Jurisprudence and Medicine.”
According to the “Translating Jihad” blog, Dr. al-Haj explains why female circumcision is recommended and even “an honor” for women. This is the practice known as female genital mutilation (FGM).
According to the UN World Health Organization (WHO), FGM ” has no health benefits for women,” and causes “severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility, as well as complications in childbirth.”
The Translating Jihad blog was established in 2010 to provide translations of Arabic-language news, opinion, and fatwas related to Islamic intolerance, totalitarianism, and jihad.
According to TJ, Dr. al-Haj, a medical doctor and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, justifies his position by referring repeatedly to the words of classical Islamic scholars from the four schools of mainstream Sunni Islamic thought, all of which attest to FGM’s legitimacy under Islam. He also refers to the words of the Prophet Muhammad himself, who reportedly counseled people in his day on how to perform FGM in a way that would be “more beautiful to behold and better for [the woman's] husband.”
Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.ReplyDelete
It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.
There will never ever be enough "medical benefits" to legitimize any degree of genital cutting in girls; the same should apply to boys.
This isn't about "medical benefits." This is about insulating cultural practice from scrutiny.
"It's my religion, it's my culture, I'm the parent" fail as alibis.
Ergo the feigned interest in public health.
The comments on Jewish Press are well worth reading. The connection between FGM and MGM are explicitly and repeatedly made.ReplyDelete
It is interesting to read what he says in English.
The benefits of male circumcision are beginning to be more recognized in the medical societies, even though still contested. Fifty years ago, no one knew that male circumcision has medical benefits. The same could be true with female circumcision.
The question is would the western universities be willing to conduct impartial studies to look for the possible benefits of female circumcision? And until the westerners had well structured and done studies on the benefits and harms of the removal of the female prepuce (AKA clitoral hood) which is analogous to the male prepuce commonly cut in the widely practiced male circumcision in the west, until they have done that, all of their propaganda about female circumcision is no more than bigotry. Once they have impartially studied the matter, they may then address the issue intelligibly. Then, we may listen to what they have to say, and reserve the right to choose for ourselves what we elect to espouse.
I believe that the part that needs to be removed in female circumcision is that which corresponds to the foreskin in the male, and that is called “the clitoral hood”. It was noticed that the same harmful smegma that accumulates under the foreskin of male infants does accumulate under the clitoral hood of the female.
What is remarkable is the amount of self-serving ignorance and anacrological amnesia present in the defense of both sides of genital cutting.ReplyDelete
The "benefits of male circumcision" are not enough for major medical societies in the world to recommend. And "researchers" knew of the "medical benefits" of circumcision as 173 years ago.
The question is, are the "studies" on male circumcision themselves "impartial" and "well-structured?" What an idiotic assumption to make!
He does make a good point though; the clitoral hood is analogous to the male prepuce. Is there a reason the hypotheses on male circumcision aren't being tested in female circumcision? The same langerhans cells that are indicted in the transmission of HIV are present in the mucosa of it, as well as the mucosa of the inner labia. So why not the "vigorous studies" there?
He is also right to point out that smegma appears in both sexes, although has no scientific basis for his claim that it is "harmful."
What the Jewish Press is trying to do is dismiss this man's arguments without analyzing them. We as intactivists must not let his arguments, which actually bring up valid points, to be lost in the "mutilation" hype.