Female Genital Mutilation (and Islam - a non-scholary approach)

The general flexibility in basic Islamic law is that if something is not directly forbidden (prohibited) then it is allowed.  As harsh as many people consider Islamic law to be, this openness of the law allows for a lot of tolerance overall.  However, it can be misconstrued, too, as it is in the case of female genital mutilation (‘FGM’) and how certain Muslims and non-Muslims consider Islam's stance on it to be.

Islamic law states that a woman can divorce her husband if he does not provide sexual satisfaction (we’ll ignore the fact that the egos of most men would not be comfortable, let alone accepting, of this being a reason for divorce, but that’s a matter for another day (maybe)).  This means that the sexual satisfaction of a woman is her right, Islamically.  (Does that really surprise some people?)

Now, going back to the ‘general flexibility’ outlined above, because there is no direct prohibition within the Qur’an or the Hadith regarding FGM there are those who would use that ‘silence’ as proof of its permissiveness.  Some will refer to one hadith where the Prophet (saw) said to a woman who used to perform such circumcisions in Medina ‘Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband’.  This hadith, found in Sunan Abu Dawud, is classified as ‘weak’ but it does, of itself, make clear that any FGM done should be minimal and should not have an adverse affect on the pleasures of either the woman or her husband.

It’s at this point, as grim as it is, that I think one should consider (without going into detail (sorry)) the different types of FGM.  The World Health Organization lists four major types of female genital mutilation:

1. Clitoridectomy
2. Excision
3. Infibulation
4. Other: all other harmful procedures to the genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing (yes, those who have their clitoris pierced ‘for fun, etc’ here in the West have undergone female genital mutilation), incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area

Now, in light of the harm the types of FGM bring about to the girl/woman (urinary tract infections, childbirth complications, infertility) they cannot be considered to be permitted Islamically.  Sure, I’m not a scholar but a key aspect of Islam (contrary to a lot non-Muslim assertion) is common sense.  Whether people exercise or recognize such sense, though, is a different matter, unfortunately.

(As an important aside, it should be noted that there's no record (as far as I'm aware) of any of the Prophet's (saw) wives (ra) or daughters (ra) ever being circumcised.)

So it’s not endorsed within Islam (even if some Muslims and non-Muslims think it is), and it’s something being practiced by people of numerous faiths, which then begs the question: why is it done?  When 3 million girls annually in Africa alone are at risk, it’s not an issue to be ignored.

Some of the ‘whys’:

-         reduction in female libido which, in turn, keeps her ‘pure’

-         a (invasive and gross) form of peer and social pressure (‘so-and-so had their daughter circumcised and so should we, otherwise the community will shame us’)

-         a much more invasive and painful way of safeguarding chastity (a ‘chastity belt’ utilizing flesh)

-         social control

Now, going back to the aforementioned ‘pleasure’ which, Islamically, is a right of both spouses – since it has been medically established that the removal of the clitoris, the prepuce (the most sensitive parts of the human body (thought to have more than 70,000 nerve endings!), and so forth reduce or eliminate the pleasures a woman can experience then, other than when it is a medical necessity, it’s haram.

If you think the West is ‘super-advanced’ with regards to FGM, then you need to take on board the fact that even in the early 80s, in the United States, there was promotion of female circumcision (Playgirl had an article called Circumcision for Women: The Kindest Cut of All (that was in the late 70s, but still)), and it was only in 1997 that it became a federal crime to make any non-medically necessary cutting upon the genitals of a minor girl for any reason, whether religious or otherwise, and to any degree. 

That’s barely 15 years ago!

So how about a different approach – instead of hurling abuse and accusations and so forth at those who are ‘practicing’ FGM, educate them.  Through education and understanding you’ll take away the overbearing social conformity aspect, you’ll give women the courage to step up and stop what they went through from happening to their daughters, you’ll give men an awareness that what they’ve been allowing to happen is wrong, you'll give boys the courage to protect their sisters...

Allah (swt) admonishes those who blindly follow and do the things their forefathers did (2:170, 5:104, for example) and, to a large degree, that’s the crux of the problem here: the practitioners are continuing with this because it’s what their forefathers did.  Insha’Allah, through education and understanding, this abuse and debilitating practice can be brought to an end – but, considering the fact it hasn’t even been two decades since the West ‘ended’ the practice, there’s no real moral high ground for them at this point in time.

Is it frustrating and horrifying to those of us who are against the practice?  Sure.  Patience and perseverance, though, will lead to awareness, change, and better things (Insha'Allah).

Living Under Drones (Pakistan and her civilians)

Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan

(The site ( livingunderdrones.org ) keeps hanging at the moment but you can find articles on sites such as the UK’s Guardian, The Telegraph and Daily Mail, the LA Times, CNN etc)

‘In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling 'targeted killings' of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.

‘This narrative is false.’

The report says that the US government rarely acknowledges civilian casualties, though there is significant evidence that civilians are being injured and killed.
The report highlights the impact of drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan's tribal regions. Citing ‘extensive interviews with the local population’ (more than 130 interviews), the authors say:

• children are being taken out of school out of fear of a drone-strike or to compensate for income lost from a dead or wounded relative [which means the knock-on effect is an increase in child labour and a decrease in child education]
• there is ‘significant evidence’ of the practice of ‘double-tap’ strikes in which rescuers arriving at the scene are targeted in follow-up attacks (which is a key terrorist approach [the US government has previously said it’s a ‘hallmark’ of Hamas, but, well, it seems to be ‘okay’ if the US is doing it…hypocrisy much?)]
• the ‘double-tap’ strikes are estimated to kill an average of 49 civilians for every one ‘known terrorist’
• drones flying overhead have led to "substantial levels of fear and stress... in the civilian communities" [in other words, they are terrified and the drones are an act of terrorism]
• as well as injury or death, the attacks cause property damage, severe economic hardship and emotional trauma for the injured and their families
• people are afraid to attend gatherings such as funerals for fear of attack

No doubt there are those who justify all this, with ‘excuses’ such as ‘well, they’re the ones harbouring the terrorists’ and so forth.  Sure, the neighbours and family of the Aurora shooter knew what he was going to do, the neighbours and family of Timothy McVeigh knew he was going to put together and use a truck bomb?

Problem is, that’s exactly the kind of double-standard which feeds the animosity and frustration.  It’s fodder for those who want to incite others to acts of violence, they use it as form of justification.

I can understand the use of precision strikes (the general idea is a good one) and if they were working (and effective) in getting to the higher levels of terrorist organisations without killing civilians then, frankly, more people would be rooting for them.  Take, for example, the incident last year when there was a tribal gathering who were wholly aware that there was to be a drone attack (they had been notified in advance) and could hear the drones overhead, but considered themselves safe because they weren’t the target.  42 people were killed.  That is not a ‘precision strike’.

When (lower estimates) 140,000 to (higher estimates) 1,200,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past decade, and the people on the ground have a constant reminder and a constant fear about it, is it really surprising that there’s animosity towards those who are, with no misinterpretation of the word, terrorising them?

Although a strange analogy, it’s kind of like the US is ‘Kanye West’ and Pakistan et al are keep getting interrupted whenever they ‘voice their protestations’:

Pakistan: Innocent people are being killed in order to -

US: Yo, Pakistan, I think you’re a cool ally now and then and I’mma let you finish, but [insert ‘justification’ here]

It’s not as if the higher-ups in the US don’t know about the civilian loss and the effect it has, overall they just don’t care.

Out of sight, out of mind – not on the homeland so not of much (if any) concern and any retaliatory response is an act of aggression and terrorism against the US…

The good old ‘two rule world’.

(Am I coming across too cynical and ‘bitter’?)

Bat-rant!

One of the things which set apart the Bat-clan from most other 'human-heroes' was their intensive training.  For example, Batman once said to Dick, with regards to the kind of physical training he would have to do: 'triple it (Dick's acrobatic training in the circus) and then triple it again'.

I remember when I read that years ago, my mouth fell wide open and I just thought 'dang...'.

Those of us who have done gymnastics or (most forms of) martial arts are readily aware of how intense the training is, and to crank it up to what Bruce was outlining...well, it's no wonder the Bat-clan were 'the best of the best of the best'.

Barbara donned the cape and cowl without training from The Bat, but that didn't last long.  She, too, underwent the intense physical training the job she was aspiring to do required.

Nowadays, though...it seems all one needs is a couple of months (sure, Jason says 6 but that includes the other disciplines the Bat-clan embrace and he was nowhere near Dick's base-level (and neither is Tim, even with his 'Olympic-scout-attracting' level of gymnastics (Teen Titans #0))) and they're 'ready'.

Is this an attempt to make them 'relatable'?

Is this something people feel works?

Back in Blind Justice, when Bruce used someone else's body while his own healed from various injuries, the 'fit' person was nowhere near Bruce's level, now a few Crossfit, P90X and Insanity sessions and 'regular'-folk, too, could do Bat-clan stuff?

oh dear...



(yes, yes, I'm 'underselling' but so are the current writers...)


I'm all for having them have a 'base level' and for Tim to have a certain 'just above base level proficiency' in certain things but, personally, when Tim and Jason are shown to be more 'physically able' than Dick there's a part of me that just rejects that portrayal.

Their deductive skills are different (Tim, for example, doesn't have Bruce's 'blindspot' (or, rather, reluctance to acknowledge), Dick is more immediately intuitive, Jason's able to mingle with the underbelly) but they're all smart.

Personally, I'm hoping for something in the upcoming Bat-arc that showcases these differences - a scene similar to the Robin #0 one, for example, would be great.

They are 'the best of the best of the best', but they're different - and there are no Mary Sues!!


(rant over)

Information and Misinformation

The 'Information Age' has given us almost immediate access to information and MISinformation - the problem now is that many don't seem to bother to distinguish one from the other.  It's almost an 'if it's online and on the first page of the search results then it must be true' situation.

Back in the day, research required a person to actively and decisively sift through a wealth of information.  Nowadays, it's a few keyboard strokes and barely any attempt at verification :(

We can't forget visual misdirection - when 9/11 happened there was 'footage' of 'celebrations' in the Middle East being broadcast by some news stations; the footage turned out to be stuff they had pulled from their archives, but they didn't tell anyone that and, to this day, more than a decade later, many believe the footage to be 'real'.  The seeds were sowed and millions were demonised within moments.

Similarly with the riots in Pakistan – the media showed the chaos (that’s ‘newsworthy’) but no the peace.  Even the Pakistani media didn’t put forward any of the many peaceful protests, so how were those outside of the country to know there were peaceful gathers occurring, too?

Millions demonised again (and I’m a party to that demonisation because, as much as I searched, I couldn’t find anything (initially) which showed the peaceful protests).

Information and Misinformation.

Now, apparently, Iran wants to put together its own ‘internet’ – as dangerous as the MISinformation that is currently out there, online, is…this could be even more so.  Although countries like China have various firewalls etc set up blocking certain sites and information sources, that information can still be accessed…but what could be the position a couple of generations down the line?  What happens when information is restricted?  What happens when half-truths and lies are being touted as ‘truth’? (Hello ‘Dark Ages’, it’s been a while)

‘Knowledge is power’, we know that, but ignorance and false-knowledge is dangerous (we know this, too, but some people are still uber-keen in promoting it however they can :( )

Time to step up

‘Nothing is heavier in the scales of a believer on the Day of Judgment than his good behaviour.  Allah (swt) detests a person who is obscene and shameless.’ (Tirmidhi)

Across the world we keep being exposed to ‘the two faces of Islam’:

-         death-chanting, aggressive, violent and ‘out of control’

-         peaceful, praying and calling for calm

The ‘second face’ is often ignored, side-lined and quickly forgotten (it’s not really ‘newsworthy’, especially when you can show images and footage of rampaging flag-burners), but there’s a problem within that ‘second-face’ – they keep shying away.

We need that ‘second-face’ to be out there and not back down.

We need the scholars and speakers to keep preaching and speaking and teaching.

And praying.

When the people of Taif pelted the Prophet (saw) with stones and chased him out of the city, he didn’t seek their deaths.  He prayed for them and their children.

When the woman who hurled abuse at him, daily, as he walked for the morning prayer wasn’t there one morning, he asked about her wellbeing and, hearing she was ill, went to see her.  He even addressed her as ‘mother’.

When the woman who ordered the assassination of the Prophet’s (saw) uncle and later mutilated his body and chewed his liver, was brought before the Prophet (saw) years later…he forgave her.

With regards to the man who assaulted Zainab (ra), the Prophet’s (saw) daughter, causing her to miscarry…the Prophet (saw) forgave him.

Time and time again, he forgave those who abused and oppressed him.

Time and time again, he forgave those who abused and oppressed those dear to him.

Time and time again, he warned against becoming one of the oppressors.

Those out there seeking ‘violent retribution’ need to take a few moments to consider what it is that they’re actually doing.  Are they truly and absolutely ‘fighting’ for Allah and His Prophet…or are they giving way to their own frustrations?  On one occasion, when Ali (ra) was fighting in a jihad, he had his opponent ‘on the ropes’ when his opponent then spat on him.  Ali (ra), to the astonishment of the others there and his opponent, threw down his sword walked away, leaving his opponent alive.  Why?  Ali (ra) later said that he knew that if he had delivered the killing blow at that point it would not have been in a fight for God but because of the anger at being spat on, rendering him a murderer instead of a noble warrior.

So, in light of all this, those encouraging violence and those doing violence in response to the ‘movie’ need to re-assess their actions and motives.

It’s easy for me to say these things, ‘hiding’ behind this platform – but I’m not a scholar.  I’m not the kind of person others will listen to and adhere to and follow.  Those people, noted scholars and speakers, are out there…but they only seem to come forward for brief moments.  They need to step up and do more.

It doesn’t matter if their words aren’t receiving the ‘right press’, they just need to keep doing it.

Insha’Allah, they will.

Protesting is fine, rioting is wrong.

Allah (swt) warns us against becoming ‘transgressors’, going ‘beyond limits’ but, time and time again, Muslims across the world are shown ‘transgressing’ and ‘going beyond limits’.  They keep crossing the line and, for the most part, are unashamed in doing so.  They feel justified.

Their anger over the Prophet (saw) being slandered is righteous and is justified, but their targeting of people who have nothing to do with any slanderous comments made or the movies, etc, is neither righteous nor justified.

Frankly, the producers, director etc are lying when they claim they ‘didn’t expect this kind of reaction’.  It’s exactly the reaction they were looking; it’s exactly why they were so disappointed when no one paid any attention to the ‘movie’ months ago; it’s exactly why they ‘anonymously’ dubbed the trailer into Arabic, reposted and directed attention towards it.

The riots are exactly what they wanted so they could sit back and say ‘see?  We told you the Muslims are a murderous and bloodthirsty lot’.

The initial protest in Egypt was done ‘right’, so to speak.  Sure, it was aggressive but there was also unity – there were Muslims and Christians in attendance, both protesting the ‘movie’.  The Libyan one, though…certain people clearly had ulterior motives – why else would they turn up with RPGs and other weapons?

There’s also another thing these so-called ‘Christians’ enjoy ‘lauding’ and (whether wittingly or not) enjoy taking advantage of – the lack of slander and vitriol on the part of Muslims towards Jesus (as).  Yes, they’re ‘outraged’ when Muslims assert that Jesus (as) is not God and is not His son, but they take comfort in the fact that no Muslim will ever claim Jesus (as) was a paedophile or a womanizer or consorted with women of ill-repute.  It’s not because the texts, narratives, beliefs and so forth regarding Christ across the spectrum of Christianity are so ‘clean’ or beyond reproach, but that we, Muslims, love and revere him so much that we cannot and will not say anything slanderous about him.  For any one of us to do so would render us non-Muslim.  (so it's best left to their own scholars and writers to sully Jesus' (as) name, but when they do we, Muslims, must protest such things, too!)

It’s really that simple.

Going back to the protests: demonstrations commanding (encouraging) good and forbidding (condemning) evil are right and permissible; willfully and intentional inciting violence, however, is not.  Yes, some demonstrations will descend into conflict, but to go there with the intention of harming others…that is wrong.

The true purpose beyond protests and demonstrations is dawah – to bring awareness to others and to show them the truth through words and actions.  The words?  Lectures and narrations refuting, for example, allegations made against the Prophet (saw).  The actions?  Salaat (prayer).

If some of the protestors are ‘antsy’, they should drink some water and calm down.  If that’s not sufficient, they should sit down.  If that’s not enough, they should lie down.  Throughout it all, though, they should perform dhikr – remembrance of Allah (swt).

Do all this and we would truly provide a slap in the faces of all those inciting Muslims to violence.

Do all this and we would truly be upholding the honour of our beloved leader, the best of mankind, the mercy from Allah (swt) – our beloved Prophet (saw).