Australia’s Islamic representatives are in damage control mode after leading Islamic scholars published a document which generated immediate condemnation.
Many critics questioned why Islamic scholars are issuing “guidelines” for something which is already well-defined in Australian law – the law which is supposed to apply to all Australians. For critics, the “guidelines” smacked of an attempt to impose a separate system of religious law.
But it is the Imams’ apparently equivocal position on female genital mutilation which caused the most uproar. The document stated that circumcision was prescribed “by way of obligation” for boys. On the other hand, the document conspicuously failed to note that FGM is completely illegal in Australia. Instead, it made the mealy-mouthed observation that there is “no obligation for the circumcision of a girl”.
The peak body representing Australian Muslims has condemned a set of foster care guidelines written by some of the country’s foremost Islamic scholars, saying their language and positions appeared to downplay the practice of female genital mutilation by equating it with circumcision.
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils launched an extraordinary attack on the Australian National Imams Council over the 12-page document, which was released last week to encourage and promote foster caring within the Muslim community.
Child protection advocates in NSW, Victoria and the federal government reacted angrily to the policy paper, criticising its inconsistencies with Australian law and family management best practice.
Which might beg the question: who is correct about Islamic law? A Sunni activist group whose authority to speak for Australia’s Muslims is often questioned, or Australia’s leading Islamic scholars?
The ANIC said on Wednesday it would refine the document to unequivocally state that it opposed female genital mutilation, which was in fact forbidden under Islamic law. The council did not specify whether other revisions would be made.
No source is given for the claim that FGM is forbidden under Islamic law. Certainly, an unambiguous religious ruling on the barbaric practise would be more than welcome.
But to the best of my knowledge, of the traditional Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence, none outright forbids FGM. The Shafi’i school, which predominates in the most populous Muslim regions of the globe, rules female circumcision – aka FGM – as obligatory. The others regard it as “preferable” (technically, makruma, or “noble”).
NSW Families Minister Gareth Ward said he “totally condemned” the policy paper and would write to the council seeking amendments.
Federal Assistant Minister for Children and Families Michelle Landry called the document “distressing” and said the council “must recognise that child safety and permanency is subject to Australian state and territory laws”[…]
In a statement, the council sought to allay criticisms of its terminology around female genital mutilation, stating that it was forbidden and impermissible under Islamic law. It said the document would be revised out of “abundant caution”.
A cynic might note that it could be argued that “female genital mutilation” and “circumcision” might not be considered the same thing – in some views – and smell an attempt at tawriya: that is, intentionally creating a false impression by saying something that is technically true, when knowing that the listener will interpret it in a different way.
But the equivocation over FGM is just the most notable of many troubling statements in the document.
In a section dealing with marriage rights, it states that an imam should retain the legal right over the marriage of a foster child in circumstances where biological parents are absent, classing their authority above the foster parent’s.
The Australian
The document also asserts that “wearing the hijab is obligatory in front of the foster child if there has been no breastfeeding”.
It also reiterates that women can only inherit half of what is bequeathed to males, and a requirement for females to dress “modestly”, including headscarves.
Former sex discrimination commissioner Pru Goward described the ANIC policy paper as “extraordinary and disappointing”.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD
