But what about the rights of women and others?
Many assert today that the spread of Sharia in the United States cannot be resisted or even opposed, because to do so would restrict the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. But did the Founding Fathers really intend the freedom of religion to be a license to commit other crimes?
This question became more than hypothetical in a case that unfolded nearly a decade ago. On April 13, 2017, a Muslim doctor in Detroit named Jumana Nagarwala was charged with mutilating the genitals of two seven-year-old girls. Shortly thereafter, two associates of Dr. Nagarwala, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar and his wife Farida Attar, were likewise charged. All three were members of the Anjuman-e-Najmi mosque in Farmington Hills, Michigan, where Nagarwala’s husband, Moiz Nagarwala, was leader and joint treasurer of the mosque, and Dr. Attar had served in the same roles.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco did not minimize the horror of the charges: “According to the complaint, despite her oath to care for her patients, Dr. Nagarwala is alleged to have performed horrifying acts of brutality on the most vulnerable victims. The Department of Justice is committed to stopping female genital mutilation in this country, and will use the full power of the law to ensure that no girls suffer such physical and emotional abuse.”
Dr. Attar’s attorney Mary Chartier attempted an audacious defense, saying when Nagarwala and the Attars were indicted: “I do believe that the government does not fully understand the religious practices of Dr. Attar and Dr. Attar’s religion, and I think that’s why we are in this courthouse today, and what we’ll be fighting over for the next few months.”
Indeed, the government is likely clueless as to the Islamic justifications for female genital mutilation, but what was truly shocking about Chartier’s statement was that she clearly intended to make religious freedom the linchpin of her case for the defense. Chartier was getting right to the heart of the matter; apparently, she intended to argue that female genital mutilation (contrary to the constantly repeated establishment media myth) was justified in Islam, and that therefore Dr. Attar was just exercising his freedom of religion.
This did not become a test case for the spread of Sharia practices in the United States, for a judge threw it out on other grounds, but the questions that this defense raised still remain. Either Muslims will be allowed to violate existing U.S. laws under the rubric of the freedom of religion, or they will be called upon to obey U.S. laws even when those laws conflict with the teachings of Islam.
If this question came before the Supreme Court and it ruled for the latter, the U.S. would have a chance to continue to exist as a free society. If the high court ruled for the former, it would be opening the door to all manner of jihad activity and Sharia practices that violate laws regarding equality of rights and equality of access to services, and no one would be able to say a word against the spread of Sharia in the U.S.
Chartier said of the defendants: “They have a religious belief to practice their religion. And they are Muslims and they’re being under attack because of it. I believe that they are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs and I do not make that allegation lightly.”
In reality, they were “being under attack” for mutilating girls’ genitals. But Chartier was right: female genital mutilation is indeed sanctioned in Islam.
A manual of Islamic law that the most prestigious and influential institution in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s al-Azhar, certifies as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” stipulates that “circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr ‘clitoris’ [this is called khufaadh ‘female circumcision’])” (parenthetical and bracketed material as in the original).
Why is it obligatory? Because Muhammad is held to have said so: “Abu al-Malih ibn Usama’s father relates that the Prophet said: ‘Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.’” Another hadith depicts Muhammad recommending moderation in the practice, but by no means forbidding it outright: “Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: ‘Do not cut severely, as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.’”
It is commonly claimed to be an East African problem, and indeed, according to a May 2015 Egyptian government report, 92 percent of Egyptian women between the ages of 15 and 49 had had their genitals mutilated. But female genital mutilation is also common among Muslims in many other areas of the world. 93 percent of Muslim women in Malaysia have suffered this procedure, and it is also common in Indonesia. In one province in Iran, 60 percent of the women have suffered FGM.
These extraordinarily high rates are directly related to the encouragement that Muslim clerics give to the practice. For the same reason, it is becoming more common in the West. And if those who argue that it is a matter of freedom of religion succeed, it will become legal as a matter of freedom of religion. As the number of Muslim elected officials grows, watch for that to happen.
Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
