Not confined to one faith
FGM is a social and cultural practice found among some communities with different religious identities. It should not be treated as a defining practice of Islam, Christianity or Indigenous traditions.
Religion, custom and human rights
Female genital mutilation: debates and responses
A careful historical overview of how the practice has been discussed in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, including Muslim scholarly debates, legal responses and international efforts to protect girls and women.
Content and health note
This article discusses a harmful practice affecting girls and women without describing procedures graphically. FGM can cause serious immediate and long-term health consequences. Anyone facing a personal medical or safeguarding concern should contact an appropriately qualified healthcare or protection professional.
No Qur'anic requirement
The Qur'an does not require FGM. Muslim scholars have disputed the reliability and meaning of other texts historically invoked in its defense.
A human-rights concern
International bodies and many national authorities regard FGM as a violation of the rights, health and bodily integrity of girls and women.
Religion and social custom
FGM has sometimes been presented as a religious obligation, but its distribution across communities does not support that characterization. Historically, it has been practiced by some Muslim, Christian and traditional-religion communities while being absent from many other communities belonging to those same faiths.
Older estimates and examples in the archive must be read in their historical setting. Prevalence can vary substantially by country, region, age and community, and current figures should be checked against recent public-health sources rather than assumed from past reports.
The practice predates Islam. The Qur'an, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible do not prescribe it. Within Muslim debate, attention has instead centered on reports attributed to early Islamic tradition. Scholars have disagreed over whether those reports are reliable, and even historically permissive readings did not establish a Qur'anic command.
Debate among Muslim scholars
The archive records that some advocates relied on a disputed report describing advice given to a practitioner in Medina. Because all attributed material is paraphrased here, the essential point is that the report was interpreted by some as limiting harm rather than requiring a procedure. Other scholars rejected the report as inauthentic and therefore unsuitable as a basis for religious duty.
Muslim opponents of FGM have also drawn on broader principles: the duty not to cause harm, respect for the body, and the Qur'anic presentation of marriage as a relationship characterized by affection, mercy and mutual care. These principles have supported the conclusion that damaging an unconsenting child's body cannot be justified as a religious obligation.
Writers from affected communities have explained that the custom has often been sustained by social pressure surrounding chastity, marriageability, family standing and control of women's sexuality. That analysis locates the practice in gendered social expectations rather than in a universal teaching of Islam.
Changing religious opinions in Egypt
Egyptian religious opinions changed across the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Archived rulings included permissive or favorable positions, often reflecting the social and medical assumptions of their period. Other rulings held that families could decline the practice without committing a religious wrong.
By 2007, Egypt's Grand Mufti publicly prohibited the custom. This followed a 2006 Cairo conference attended by Muslim scholars from several countries. Its concluding position treated FGM as contrary to Islamic principles against harm and called for education, prevention and legal protection. See the archive's discussion of the Egyptian ruling and related essay on Egypt.
Law, asylum and safeguarding
Governments have approached FGM through criminal law, child protection, healthcare rules and immigration or asylum procedures. The source archive notes that Canada recognized the risk of FGM in protection decisions and made it an offense to remove a resident child from the country for the purpose of subjecting her to the practice.
The United States enacted federal prohibition in the 1990s. Several European countries and other jurisdictions also prohibited the practice. Laws and their application have continued to evolve, so readers seeking current legal guidance should consult official sources or a qualified professional.
Legal prohibition is only one part of prevention. If enforcement is disconnected from education, healthcare access and community trust, families may conceal risk and affected people may hesitate to seek care. Effective safeguarding therefore combines clear law with culturally informed education and confidential medical support.
International action: an archival timeline
1958–1959
A United Nations body requested study of harmful traditional practices affecting girls. The World Health Organization initially treated the issue as outside its remit because it arose from social and cultural customs.
1980s
UNICEF emphasized public education involving communities, health professionals and local leaders. In 1989, the WHO Regional Committee for Africa urged governments to adopt policies aimed at ending the practice and opposed its performance by health professionals.
1990s–2000s
National prohibitions expanded, while advocates and religious scholars increasingly framed prevention around health, bodily integrity, child protection and the principle against harm.
2012
The United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/67/146 by consensus, calling on states to intensify worldwide efforts to eliminate FGM through legislation, protection, education and accountability.
Culture and children's rights
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protects cultural identity while also requiring states to work toward abolishing traditional practices harmful to children's health. These principles need not be treated as contradictory: respect for communities does not require accepting injury or overriding a child's bodily integrity.
Community-led change can distinguish between valued identity and a harmful practice. Prevention is strongest when affected women, healthcare workers, educators, faith leaders and child-protection specialists can participate without stigmatizing an entire religion, nationality or ethnic group.
Sources in the original archive
The original essay drew on religious commentary, United Nations and WHO records, journalism and advocacy publications. Direct quotations have been replaced with factual paraphrases, and inaccessible or promotional external links have been omitted.
- Muslim Women's League, position paper on FGM and religious arguments.
- Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, analysis of religious arguments concerning circumcision.
- Nawal El-Saadawi, The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World, translated and edited by Sherif Hetata, 1980.
- United Nations Economic and Social Council records, 1958.
- World Health Assembly records, 1959.
- WHO Regional Committee for Africa, Resolution AFR/RC39/R9, 1989.
- UNICEF position material concerning female excision, 1980.
- UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/146, adopted in 2012.
Reader guide
Frequently asked questions
Is FGM required by Islam?
No Qur'anic passage requires it. Muslim scholars have disputed the authenticity and interpretation of other reports used historically to defend the practice, and major Muslim authorities have opposed it.
Is the practice limited to Muslim communities?
No. It has occurred in some communities with Muslim, Christian and traditional religious identities and is absent from most Muslim communities worldwide. It is more accurately understood as a localized social custom.
Why does this page avoid detailed descriptions?
The educational purpose can be served without graphic procedural detail. The page focuses on religious arguments, history, law, health and human rights.
Can medical performance make FGM acceptable?
International health guidance opposes medicalization. Having a health professional perform a harmful, non-medically necessary procedure does not resolve the issues of consent, bodily integrity or long-term harm.
Are the laws listed here current?
This is an archival overview, not legal advice. Laws and enforcement change, so consult current official material or a qualified legal professional for a specific jurisdiction.
How can communities prevent FGM without religious stereotyping?
Use accurate local evidence, involve affected women and trusted community figures, provide confidential healthcare and safeguarding, and avoid assigning a diverse global religion responsibility for a regional custom.