aziz
-
07:04:12 am on August 19, 2008 | # | |
regarding the forced ritual flogging of young boys -
the issue really serves to highlight the necessity of governmental oversight of religious practice. Not to define what religious practices are “correct” or not, but rather to simply be blind to religion when evaluating issues against the law. The question of whether self-flagellation is an authentic Islamic or Shi’a practice is a (bloody) red herring - the question is simply whether the actions violated Law. And they did, so Mr. Zaidi needs to be prosecuted accordingly. Bringing this issue into the domain of religious freedom only serves to cloud the issue, and taint the entire muslim community, Sunni and Shi’a alike.
good discussion at Deenport, also, particularly this comment:
apart from the (elected) government, who else can provide public safeguards when religious practices veer into problematic areas, for instance where they are forced upon those who are uncomfortable with them, or simply don’t accept them as ‘correct’ religious practices?
I do believe that ultimately, these safeguards protect religious minorities even while they impose limits on public manifestations of religion. Do we need protecting from ourselves? I think that sometimes we do…
-
Tag this post
Comments
Join the Discussion
thabet 7:26 am on August 19, 2008 | #
There are parallels here with the disapproval of FGM, but the acceptance of male circumcision.
aziz 7:51 am on August 19, 2008 | #
agreed - though in that particular debate, the terminology is highly assymetrical. No one calls male circumcision “male genital mutilation”. If theres a corresponding, relatively benign analogue to circumcision for females, then it would still get called FGM, simply because of the emphasis and attention the horrific tales of child abuse we hear about from the nether regions of tribal countries.
in general for any religious practice we could hypothesize that there’s a spectrum, ranging from casual to extreme. The casual practice is what is subject to internal debate on compulsory vs not, tradition vs innovation, etc. However that range of practice gets compressed towards the extreme end, invariably, when it comes to light, because its the extreme end that is actually attention-worthy (muslims prayed at a local mosque peacefully and went hom. film at 11.)
aziz 8:03 am on August 19, 2008 | #
let me note that i am unaware of such an analogous procedure, incidentally. and if its out there, dont tell me, please.
Willow 2:31 pm on August 19, 2008 | #
I was surprised to see that the Egyptians got so fired up. It was Gomaa who declared the practice of FGM unIslamic two or three years ago.
thabet 2:41 pm on August 19, 2008 | #
What makes male circumcision acceptable and this flogging incident or FGM unacceptable?
Pain? Permanent deformation of the body? A procedure carried out on a minor? Part of religious or cultural traditions with a long history?
(Note my argument is not against male circumcision. I am interested in peoples views on why we tolerate one and not the other.)
Willow 11:36 pm on August 19, 2008 | #
Female circumcision, as I’m sure you’ve heard, is in most cases equivalent in nerve damage to removing the entire penis. And the purpose of FGM is to deaden sexual desire, which is not the purpose of male circumcision. So: in FGM we have severe physical debilitation and malevolent intent; in male circumcision, minor physical debilitation and benign intent. Male circumcision has proven health and hygiene benefits; female circumcision proven health and hygiene detriments. Comparing male and female circumcision is like comparing a mole to a melanoma. They only *look* similar.
I’ll say this flat out–anybody who blushes easily, stop at the two dots: I have several circumcised women friends, and every one of them hates and fears sex. Which I suppose is great when you’re trying to keep an unmarried virgin in line, but it will also destroy a marriage. I’ve watched it happen. If it wasn’t so tragic, there would be great poetic irony in the fact that FGM erodes the very institution it was meant to protect.
thabet 12:24 am on August 20, 2008 | #
Social and physical domination, then?
Willow 2:13 pm on August 20, 2008 | #
i guess?